Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The pri vatisation of educa tion is contr oversial b ut is it ine vitable? How widespr ead is
it? What does it mean f or educa tional pr actice?
In Education plc , Stephen Ball pr ovides a compr ehensive, anal ytical and empirical
account of the pri vatisation of educa tion. He questions the kind of futur e we want f or
educa tion and w hat role pri vatisation and the pri vate sector ma y have in tha t futur e.
Using policy sociolo gy to describe and criticall y anal yse changes in policy , policy
technolo gies and policy r egimes, he looks a t the ethical and democr atic impacts of
these changes and r aises the following questions:
€ Is ther e a legitimacy f or pri vatisation based on the con vergence of inter ests
between business and the ‘thir d way’ state?
€ Is the e xtent and v alue of pri vate participa tion in pub lic education
misunderstood?
€ Ho w is the selling of pri vate compan y services linked to the r emodelling of
schools?
€ Why have the technical and political issues of pri vatisation been consider ed but
ethical issues almost totall y neglected?
€ What is ha ppening her e, beyond mer e technical changes in the f or m of pub lic
service delivery?
€ Is educa tion policy being spok en by new voices?
Dr awing upon e xtensive documentary r esearch and intervie ws with senior e xecutives
from the leading ‘educa tion services industry’ companies , the author challenges pr e-
conceptions a bout pri vatisation. He concludes tha t blank et defence of the pub lic
sector as it w as, over and a gainst the inr oads of pri vatisation, is untena ble and tha t
ther e is no going back to a past in w hich the pub lic sector as a w hole worked well and
worked fair ly in the inter ests of all learners , because ther e was no such past.
This book br eaks ne w ground and b uilds on Stephen Ball’s pr evious work on
educa tion policy . It should a ppeal to those r esearching and stud ying in the “ elds of
social policy, policy anal ysis, sociolo gy of educa tion, educa tion r esearch and social
economics .
Stephen J . Ball is Kar l Mannheim Pr ofessor of Sociolo gy of Educa tion a t the Institute
of Educa tion, Uni versity of London, UK.
Education plc
Understanding pri vate sector participa tion
in pub lic sector educa tion
Stephen J. Ball
First published 2007 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2007 Stephen J. Ball
List of illustrations ix
Acknowledgements xi
List of abbreviations xii
Figures
3.1 The educa tion services industry – a model 43
4.1 A contin uum of mar ketisation 103
5.1 Netw ork 1 128
5.2 Netw ork 2 130
6.1 Capita in Blackb urn 153
7.1 Academies as a ‘policy condensa te’ 172
Tables
4.1 Key actors in the ESI 90
4.2 Other actors – e xamples 91
4.3 Pub lic-to-pri vate sector mo ves 92
6.1 Levels of discourse 139
Boxes
1.1 Privileging the pri vate 4
1.2 The intervie ws 11
2.1 Conserv ative privatisations 20
2.2 Transfor mation as a b usiness opportunity 26
2.3 Discourse of pri vatisation 30
3.1 Retail services 40
3.2 PFIs: e xamples 44
3.3 Building schools f or the futur e 48
3.4 Privatised pr ogrammes 50
3.5 Islington pri vatised 52
3.6 Educa tion of o ffenders 56
3.7 Teacher suppl y 57
3.8 Tribal Gr oup 58
3.9 Private acquisitions and consolida tion 60
3.10 Sovereign Ca pital 61
x Illustrations
3.11 Contr act sales 62
3.12 Guy Hands 73
3.13 Partnerships and lead or ganisa tions 81
4.1 Values in pr actice 96
4.2 Glossing di fferences 98
4.3 Social justice 100
4.4 Private sector la bour mar kets 101
4.5 School firms’ forte ‘is lob bying for work’ 104
4.6 A framework example 106
4.7 Pushing back the boundaries 109
5.1 McKinsey: J esuits of ca pitalism 125
5.2 Peter Lampl 127
6.1 Edison Design 143
6.2 Unity Academ y 155
7.1 PFI pr ofits 161
7.2 Jarvis and PFIs 163
7.3 Bexley Business Academ y 176
7.4 Capital City Academ y 178
Acknowledgements
I want to thank the ESR C for their support in funding the fello wship which
allowed me to undertak e this work. I also w ant to ackno wledge the encour -
agement I r eceived to start this pr oject which came fr om talking with
Tony Knight o ver coffee in Car lton, tr avelling on tr ains to confer ences with
Car ol Vincent, hearing Da ve Gillborn speak and ha ving him listen to m y
preoccupa tions, and de bating ethics in Balham with Alan Crib b in the
Italian. Angie Oria needs special mention f or her man y hours of sear ching on
the internet and other help , as does Lise Obi, w ho did all sorts of pr actical
things in support of m y fellowship work. Car ol Vincent, Mar k Olssen, J ane
Lethbridge , Hugh Lauder , Alejandr a Car dini, Stephen Crump , Bob Lingar d,
Janet Ne wman, Da ve Gillborn, Brian Da vies, Dennis Sar gent, J ohn Simpson,
Ruth Lupton, Ev a Gamarnik ov, Michael P eters, Phil Woods and Meg
Ma guire, especially Meg Ma guire, read and made v ery useful comments on
various dr afts of cha pters.
David Hall of Pub lic Services Interna tional R esearch Unit, J ulie Hallam
(Unison), Da vid Budge ( TES), Chris Ab bott, Michael A pple, Hea ther Meakin
and Norbert P achler, Da vid McGahey , Der ek Foreman and Leisha Fullick
all helped out with inf or mation and e xplana tion f or which I am gr ateful, and
I thank P eter Gear f or help with financial da ta. The participants in the ZES
confer ence Bremen, EPR U pri vatisation seminar and ESR C seminar series
on pri vatisation deserv e a mention. I am v ery grateful to all m y respondents
for their time , frankness and friendliness .
Most of all I thank T rinidad Ball f or putting up with me , and f or her
inspir ation and belief , and I dedica te the book to Betty Ball.
Abbreviations
AC Audit Commission
ACCA Associa tion of Charter ed Certi fied Accountants
AIM Alterna tive Investment Mar ket
ARK Absolute R eturn f or Kids
ASB Accounting Standar ds Boar d
ASI Adam Smith Institute
ASST Academies and Specialist Schools T rust
AST Academies Sponsors T rust
BECT A British Educa tional Comm unica tions and T echnolo gy Agency
BSF Building Schools f or the Futur e
CABE Commission on Ar chitectur e and the Built En vironment
CBI Confeder ation of British Industry
CCT Compulsory Competiti ve Tendering
CEA Cambridge Educa tion Associa tes
CEL Centr e for Ex cellence in Leadership
CEO Chief Educa tion O fficer
CfBT Centr e for British T eachers
CIPF A Charter ed Institute of Pub lic Finance and Accountancy
CLCs City Learning Centr es
CPA Compr ehensive Perfor mance Assessment
CPD Contin uing Pr ofessional De velopment
CRB Criminal R ecords Bur eau
CSR corpor ate social r esponsibility
CTC City Technolo gy College
DBFO design, b uild, finance and oper ate
DETR Department f or Emplo yment, T ransport and the R egions
DfES Department f or Educa tion and Skills
EAZ Educa tion Action Zone
EiC Excellence in Cities
ESI educa tion services industry
FD A First Di vision Associa tion
FE further educa tion
FEFC Further Educa tion Funding Council
Abbreviations xiii
FM facilities mana gement
GATS Gener al Agr eement on T rade and T ari ffs
GEMS Global Educa tion Mana gement Systems
HBS Hyder Business Services
HCESSE House of Commons Educa tion and Skills Select Committee
HE higher educa tion
HEFCE Higher Educa tion Funding Council f or England
IDeA Impr ovement and De velopment Agency
ILAs Indi vidual Learning Accounts
ILEA Inner London Educa tion A uthority
IOE Institute of Educa tion
IPPR Institute f or Pub lic Policy Research
IWB inter active whiteboar d
KNWS Keynsian Na tional W elfare State
LA local authority
LEA local educa tion authority
LEP Local Educa tion P artnership
LMS Local Mana gement of Schools
LSDA Learning and Skills De velopment Agency
LSN Learning Skills Netw ork
LSP Local Str ategic Partnership
MCG Major Contr actors Gr oup
MOD Ministry of Defence
NACETT Na tional Ad visory Council f or Educa tion and T raining T argets
NAGM Na tional Associa tion of Go vernors and Mana gers
NAHT Na tional Associa tion of Headteachers
NAO Na tional A udit O ffice
NCSL Na tional College f or School Leadership
NDPBs non-departmental pub lic bodies
NFTE Na tional F ounda tion f or Teaching Enterprise
NGOs non-go vernmental or ganisa tions
NL GN New Local Go vernment Netw ork
NUT Na tional Union of T eachers
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
OECD Organiza tion f or Economic and Cultur al De velopment
Ofsted Office for Standar ds in Educa tion
PAC Pub lic Accounts Committee
PFI Private Finance Initia tive
PfS Partnerships f or Schools
Plasc Pupil le vel ann ual school census
PPP Pub lic Private Partnerships
PPPF Pub lic Private Partnership F orum
PUK Partnerships UK
PWC PricewaterhouseCoopers
QAA Quality Assur ance Associa tes
xiv Abbreviations
QCA Quali fications and Curriculum A uthority
QIA Quality Impr ovement Agency
RGfL Regional Grids f or Learning
RSA Royal Society for the encour agement of Arts , Man ufactur es and
Commer ce
SEN Special Educa tional Needs
SEU Social Ex clusion Unit
SHA Secondary Headteachers’ Associa tion
SIFE Students in F ree Enterprise
SMF Social Mar ket Founda tion
SPV Special Purpose V ehicle
SRB Strategic Regeneration Budget
SSP Strategic Service Partnership
SWS Schumpeterian W orkfar e State
TDA Training and De velopment Agency f or Schools
TES Times Educational Supplement
TPS Teachers’ P ension Scheme
TTA Teacher T raining A uthority
TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Pr otection of Emplo yment)
UCLES Uni versity of Cambridge Local Examina tions Syndica te
Ufi Uni versity for Industry
ULT United Learning T rust
VTES Vosper Thorney croft Educa tion and Skills
1 A ‘policy sociology’
introduction to privatisation(s)
Tools, meanings and positions
This book b uilds upon and e xtends m y long-standing inter est in the con-
tempor ary history of educa tion policy . It uses the method of ‘policy socio-
logy’ (Ozga 1987; Ball 1994) to describe and criticall y anal yse changes in
policy, policy technolo gies and policy r egimes in the UK, 1 and some of the
ethical and democr atic impacts of these changes , although the purpose her e
is to understand r ather than rush to judgement. As in m y previous work
theor etically and conceptuall y the book is pr agmatic and eclectic. As such
my examina tion of pri vatisation(s) in volves the use of a v ariety of anal ytic
tools to understand, interpr et and begin to e xplain the phenomenon. 2 These
tools ar e of thr ee sorts and ar e employed self-consciousl y and tenta tively
to pr ovide a methodolo gical framework which is both ontolo gically flexible
and epistemolo gically plur alist (Sibeon 2004) and a set of anal ytic concepts
which ar e potent and mallea ble. They ar e respectively discursi ve,3 structur al
and interpr etive and they ena ble me to e xplor e the comple x inter actions of
social r elations, economics and discourses without assuming the necessary
dominance of an y of these.
Discourse
Discourses ar e fallible but in fluential particular ly in pr oviding possibilities of
political thought and thus policy ‘b ut the e xtent to w hich they pr oduce w hat
they name is a ma tter f or empirical r esearch’ (Sayer 2005: 76). They ar e also
rooted within ma terial conte xts and netw orks of social inter action. Thr ough
narr atives of plausibility , including the shar ed personal narr atives ‘of signifi-
cant classes , str ata, social ca tegories or gr oups tha t have been a ffected b y the
development of the post-w ar economic and political or der’ (Jessop 2002: 93),
policies accum ulate credibility and legitimacy . These narr atives offer langua ge
and pr actices in ter ms of which the pub lic sector is being r efor med. They ar e
fundamental to the pr oduction of an ob viousness, a common sense , a ‘banal-
ity’ (Rosamond 2002) and often an ine vitability of r efor m, of a particular
sort. “Ther e is no alterna tive to r efor m. No one should be allo wed to v eto
progress . . .” (Rod Aldridge of Ca pita 4 and Chair man of the CBI Pub lic
Services Str ategy Boar d). They constitute w hat Angela Ea gle calls a ‘default
2 Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions
model for an y refor m’ (2003: 13) and a kind of r efor m readiness, or a ‘sys-
tema ticity’ (Mills 1997: 17) 5 and a ‘solidity and nor mality w hich is di fficult to
think outside of . . .’ (p. 54). Voices on the ‘outside’ of nor mal find it di fficult
to be hear d. The discourses of r efor m have distincti ve generative effects but
these effects ar e not deter mina te nor simpl y predicta ble and neither do they
work independentl y from other e xtra-discursi ve mechanisms . They pr ovide
authorita tive readings of pr evailing economic and political conditions and
problems (see below on globalisa tion) and media te and r ender as ‘sensib le’
the ‘appr opria te’ solutions .
The pr evailing discourse of educa tion and pub lic sector r efor m gener ates,
as discourses do , subject positions , social r elations and opportunities within
policy. Ne w kinds of actors , social inter actions and institutions ar e produced
(see Cha pters 4 and 5). Speci fically, the meaning, f orce and e ffect of this
discourse ar e framed b y an o ver-bearing, economic and political conte xt of
interna tional competiti veness. “The purpose of our social model should be to
enhance our a bility to compete , to help our people cope with globalisa tion”
(Prime Minister T ony Blair’s speech to EU P ar liament, 26 J une 2005). The
key ideas of these r efor m narr atives are ‘scaffolded’ b y and ‘sedimented into
institutions and oper ative networks’ (Robertson 2006: 12) – they cir culate
and gain cr edibility and impetus thr ough such netw orks. ‘Those discourses
which ar e commented upon b y others ar e the discourses w e consider to ha ve
validity and w orth’ (Mills 1997: 67). These ar e new ways of talking a bout
(“personalised learning”, “intelligent accounta bility”, “leadership ca pacity
building”, “oper ational imper ative”, “acti vity str eams”) and r ealising educa -
tion pr ocesses and r elationships . They ar e spok en and authorised b y a variety
of types of (ne w) actors speaking fr om a v ariety of (ne w and ne wly) relevant
sites and positions w hich ma p out possib le uses of sta tements within the
discourse . These sta tements ar e made up out of fr agments – slo gans, recipes,
incanta tions and self-e vidences (see Cha pters 2 and 6). The r ecitations and
rhetorics in volved her e are part of the pr ocess of b uilding support f or sta te
projects and esta blishing hegemonic visions . As F airclough (2000: 157) puts
it, ‘much of the action of go vernment is langua ge’. These sta tements ar e
painstakingl y reiterated b ut also constantl y elabor ated and in flected (r etro-
fitted) and this does not necessaril y help to pr oduce a clear and coher ent vision
of the futur e to which they point. W hat can count as part of the discourse
is limited b ut is also di verse; the sta tements and fr agments do not mak e
a coher ent joined-up w hole. They do not ha ve their e ffects by virtue of
their inher ent lo gic. Discourses often maintain their cr edibility thr ough
their r epetition, substanti ve simplicity (see the discussion of J essop la ter in
this cha pter) and rhetorical sophistica tion, f or example in this case w hat
Fairclough (2000: 10) calls ‘the denial of e xpecta tions’ which is centr al to the
langua ge of Ne w Labour .
As indica ted alr eady, the na tur alness of these discourses of r efor m arises in
good part fr om what has been e xcluded fr om them and b y them and r ender ed
unsa yable. Exclusion is indeed one of the most important aspects of discursi ve
Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions 3
production. Nonetheless , discourses e xist over and a gainst these e xclusions,
they ar e always ‘in dialo gue and in con flict with other positions’ (Mills 1997:
14) and accor dingly the discourse of r efor m str ategically appr opria tes from
other sour ces in relation to its contr ary objecti ves – trust, cr eativity and social
capital ar e perha ps examples.6 This is achie ved in part b y bringing to gether
‘impossib le alterna tives’ (Fairclough 2000) (see Cha pter 7). This can v ery
effectively under mine the possibilities of speaking ‘otherwise’ or in opposi-
tion to r efor m discourses . Despite their bricola ge for m, the discourses of
contempor ary r efor m have an a gonistic dependency , even if this often r ests
upon a set of ‘false dilemmas’, tha t is they r est heavily for their legitima tion
on a particular ‘discourse of derision’ (K enway 1990), one which pa tholo -
gises the welfare tradition of pub lic sector pr ovision, which gener ates in turn
what Torr ance (2004: 3) calls a ‘discourse of distrust’. As w e shall see later
ther e is a confusing interpla y of trust/distrust inside the discourse and mech-
anics of pub lic sector r efor m. A gr eat deal of rhetorical e ffort and discursi ve
work ar e expended on ensuring tha t the pub lic sector is portr ayed as ine ffect-
ive, unr esponsi ve, slopp y, risk-averse and inno vation-r esistant (e xcept when it
is not). Such portr ayals also w ork to e xclude or de value particular v oices,
which thence ha ve difficulty in inserting themselv es into a discourse b y virtue
of the w ay in which they ar e spok en of b y it (see Box 1.1). 7 But ther e is a
contr ary b ut concomitant cele bration of pub lic sector ‘her oes’ of refor m and
of new kinds of pub lic sector ‘excellence’. These ar e part of a ne w pub lic
sector, set over and a gainst the old.
The discourse of ‘the pri vate’, and ‘the mar ket’, is examined in the ne xt
chapter.
regime of ca pital accum ulation ha ve made the KNWS incr easingly redun-
dant and indeed obstructi ve, under mining of the conditions of accum ulation.
The r elationships betw een the emer ging accum ulation r egime (post-F ordism)
and the institutional ensemb le of the mode of r egulation became incr easingly
incoher ent. The KNWS became subject to mounting crises , in and of itself,
tha t is both structur ally and subjecti vely, which could no longer be mana ged
or deferr ed. This w as not as a r esult of some kind of disembed ded economic
logic, but r ather a conjunction of crises , financial, economic, social and politi-
cal – inflation, taxa tion costs , ungo verna bility, unemplo yment, demo graphic
change, inequality , rigidity, changing na tional identities , family insta bility,
movements of ca pital, ecolo gical pr oblems, etc., etc. – occurring a t various
Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions 5
‘moments’ acr oss the system. The f or m of the sta te/econom y relationship , the
settlement as it is sometimes ter med or the ‘spa tio-tempor al fix’ as Jessop
calls it, became untena ble and a hindr ance to interna tional competiti veness.
It pr oduced a condition Cern y (1990: 221) calls the ‘overloaded sta te’ – trying
ineffectively to mana ge a ‘lumbering’ command econom y creating ‘rigidities
which pr evented pri vate capital fr om pla ying its pr oper r ole in its o wn spher e’
(p. 221). The KNWS has as a r esult become steadil y de-legitima ted and sub-
ject to systema tic but not total dismantling and is in the pr ocess of being
replaced or in part o ver-laid b y the SWS, the lo gic and w orkings of w hich
constitute a ne w ‘social fix’. The new SWS, the ne w settlement, did not come
into e xistence once and f or all a t some particular point in time , nor is it a
stable or compr ehensive settlement. Initial optimistic r efor mism was replaced
by radical tr ansfor mation w hich is itself al ways limited b y the political r each
of regulation. 9 The extent to w hich crises ar e solved or solutions a ttempted
within the fr amework of an e xisting r egime varies betw een na tions. Ther efore
much of the gener ality of w hat is said her e has a degr ee of specific relevance
to England b ut a gener al relevance to man y other na tional settings . England
holds a particular position as a political la bor atory of political tr ansfor m-
ation, first under Tha tcher and then under Blair , which exports policy
solutions acr oss the globe (see Cha pter 3).
The for m of the SWS has not de veloped in a mechanical fashion b ut r ather
has crystallised out of the r esponses to and mana gement of crisis tendencies
and the pr omotion of ‘economic and e xtra-economic conditions deemed
appr opria te to the emer ging post-F ordist accum ulation r egime’ (Jessop 2002:
95) and its ne w ‘techno-economic par adigms’ the inf or mational, or digital or
kno wledge, econom y (see Cha pter 7). One of the aspects of the SWS , which is
very relevant to the mor e specific anal ysis to come , is a shift fr om the sta te as
a decommodifying agent to the ‘r e-emergence of the sta te as a commodifying
agent’ (Cerny 1990: 230), tha t is a r e-positioning of the sta te as commissioner
and monitor of pub lic services, and br oker of social and economic inno v-
ations, rather than deli verer or e ven owner and funder . The ne w institutional
architectur e of the SWS is still emer ging from ‘fumb lings’ and ‘muddling
thr ough’ and is changing b y trial and err or, media ted b y ‘discursive struggles
over the na tur e and signi ficance of the crisis’ (J essop 2002: 92) and the inade-
quacies of neo-liber alism as an initial r esponse (see Cha pter 2). It is within
parts of this ne w ‘competition sta te’ and its r e-scaling and r e-articula tion tha t
this r esearch is set and the ‘fumb lings’ and qualities of trial and err or
involved in ‘refor m’ of sta te educa tion will become a ppar ent ‘up close’. Indeed,
educa tion is itself no w in almost per manent ‘crisis’ as it has tak en centr e stage
in the comple x relations betw een the sta te and the ‘ima gined econom y’ – a
kno wledge econom y, an econom y much simpler than the r eal one.
I aim to tak e educa tion policy as an anal ytical case of sta te re-articula tion
and r e-scaling which might purposefull y be explor ed using J essop’s account
of the char acteristics of the SWS . Indeed he also o ffers a brief account of
educa tion policy (J essop 2002: 162–8) and the discursi ve resolution of ‘the
6 Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions
crisis in educa tion . . . thr ough a gr owing hegemon y of accounts tha t cast
educa tional r efor m in ter ms of economic imper atives’ (p. 163) within w hich
‘learning is the k ey to pr osperity’ (DfEE 1998). Ho wever, I intend to deplo y,
elabor ate and adjust his fr amework, where necessary, specifically in relation
to the pri vatisation of educa tion as one particular r esponse to crisis . This will
not, hopefull y, be a simplistic pr ocess of just fitting the case into the fr ame-
work but r ather its use as a sour ce of enriching insights: an interpla y of
explor ation and modi fication betw een da ta and concepts .
In J essop’s anal ysis the b uilding of the ‘competition sta te’ is a ‘political
response to the challenges and opportunities’ which arise fr om the decom-
position of F ordism and the ‘economic and e xtra economic’ (2002: 124) ten-
dencies of ‘globalisa tions’. 10 He sees globalisa tion(s) not as ‘being a unitary
causal mechanism’ b ut r ather ‘as the comple x emergent pr oduct of man y
different forces oper ating on man y scales’ (2002: 114). Globalisa tion is a
heter ogeneous pr ocess. It has economic, cultur al and political dimensions
and is made up of err atic but incr easingly speedy flows of capital, goods ,
services, labour and ideas (including policy ideas – Ball 1998) w hich all con-
trib ute to an incr easing synchr onicity of demands , the w eakening of tr adi-
tional structur es of meaning, and incr easing b ut varying degr ees of difficulty
for na tion sta tes in the mana gement of their economies . The ter m is used and
the pr ocesses it r efers to tak e place both in a tr ansiti ve sense, something w hich
is made to ha ppen, and in an intr ansiti ve sense as something tha t ha ppens
(Lewin 1997). It is not just ‘an “out ther e” phenomenon. It r efers not onl y to
the emer gence of lar ge scale world systems, but to tr ansfor mations in the v ery
textur e of everyday life’ (Giddens 1996: 367–8). Ho wever, ‘to a lar ge extent,
globaliza tion r epresents the triumph of the econom y over politics and cul-
tur e’ (Kellner 2000: 307). F or Western de veloped economies , globalisa tion
is a thr eat to tr aditional f or ms of pr oduction and accum ulation and the
opportunity f or ne w for ms. While in some w ays less nuanced, Leys (2001: 2)
presents a case v ery similar to J essop, tha t pr ofound change in the structur e
and r ole of the sta te ‘flows from a ne w political d ynamic r esulting fr om eco-
nomic globalisa tion. It is not tha t the sta te has become impotent, b ut tha t it is
constr ained to use its po wer to ad vance the pr ocess of commodi fication’ and
‘from no w on society w ould be incr easingly shaped in w ays tha t served the
needs of ca pital accum ulation’ (p. 80). To quote T ony Blair a gain: “Of course
we need a social Eur ope. But it m ust be a social Eur ope tha t works” (speech
to the EU P ar liament, 25 J une 2005).
The political r esponses to all of this in volve new for ms of sta te relations,
new institutions and le vels of acti vity, new actors and a gents of policy inter-
vention, ne w policy narr atives and the de velopment of ne w for ms of go vern-
ance. To reiterate, this is not a single , conscious , explicit pr oject, b ut is a set
of tr ends which involve searches, discoveries, borr owing, and ‘struggles to
mobilise support behind alterna tive accum ulation str ategies’ (Jessop 2002:
124), which ar e critically media ted thr ough ne w discourses and w hich ar e
also speci fic and pa th-dependent within particular political, cultur al and
Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions 7
accum ulation histories . Within Ne w Labour this in volves a mo ve away from
Fabian planning modes of policy to the deplo yment of pr ojects, initia tives
and r esour ces tar geting and policy e xperiments fr om a v ariety of sour ces.
These constitute a ‘tendential emer gence’ (Jessop 2002: 124) on di fferent
scales – local, city, regional, na tional – of ne w for ms of entr epreneurialism
which ar e intended to pr omote structur al or systemic competiti veness (see
Cha pters 6 and 7). Competition sta tes typicall y have a ‘self-image as being
proacti ve in pr omoting the competiti veness of their economic spaces’ (J essop
2002: 124), always though in r elation to an econom y, the subject of policy ,
tha t they can contr ol or in fluence r ather than tha t they cannot. Indeed,
‘National competiti veness has incr easingly become a centr al pr eoccupa tion
of governance str ategies thr oughout the w orld’ (Watson and Ha y 2003: 299).
‘So what is the a genda tha t we are carrying thr ough?. . . It is to b uild on the
platfor m of economic sta bility, the modern kno wledge econom y with the
skills, dynamism, technolo gical and scienti fic progress a country lik e Britain
needs’ (text of a speech b y Tony Blair to the La bour P arty’s centenary con-
ference in Blackpool, 10 F ebruary 2006).
Jessop (2002: 132) r epresents the r eplacement of the KNWS b y the SWS
as taking place thr ough the articula tion of a series of discursi ve-strategic
shifts ‘into ne w accum ulation str ategies, state pr ojects and hegemonic pr o-
jects’ which r eorienta te and r estructur e the sta te and pr oduce ‘ne w regulatory
regimes’. These shifts ar e media ted b y discursi ve struggles o ver the meaning
and causes of the crisis of the KNWS and its solutions , in particular the
re-narr ation of the pub lic sector in ter ms of economism, competition, per-
for mance and indi vidua tion. F ollowing Gr amsci, J essop sees a ‘key role’ for
intellectuals in this r e-narr ation ‘to consolida te an unsta ble equilibrium of
compr omise among di fferent social f orces around a gi ven economic, political
and social or der’ (2002: 6).
The centr epiece of Jessop’s account then is the emer gence of the Schumpe-
terian competition sta te, the centr al concern of w hich is ‘with inno vation,
competiti veness and entr epreneurship tied to long w aves of growth and mor e
recent pr essures on perpetual inno vation’ (2002: 132) and the de velopment of
inno vation systems locall y, nationall y and r egionall y (see Cha pter 6). One
crucial aspect of this gener alised orienta tion is the commodifying or collecti v-
ising of kno wledge with its a ttendant contr adictions – an assertion of intel-
lectual pr operty rights on the one hand and the f ostering of pr oducti vity,
comm unica tion and connecti vity on the other . Another is the de velopment of
‘meta-ca pacities’ which ar e intended to support the interna tional economic
competiti veness of the na tional econom y (see Cha pter 7) and a r esulting
expansion of the sta te’s ‘field of interv ention’ combined with a f ocused allo-
cation of r esour ces to inno vation nodes and ‘leading edges’. In Gid dens’s
(1998: 99) ter ms, ‘Government has an essential r ole to pla y in investing in the
human r esour ces and infr astructur e needed to de velop an entr epreneurial
cultur e.’ The emphasis of the sta te on structur al and systemic competiti ve-
ness leads, among other things , to a r edefinition of boundaries betw een the
8 Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions
economic and the ‘e xtra-economic’. The pr ocesses of the r edefinition of
boundaries ar e a major concern in the anal ysis which follows. Within all
this, important distinctions betw een sta te and mar ket, pub lic and pri vate,
government and b usiness, left and right ar e atten uated.
The following account b y Amey plc of their in volvement in sponsorship of
an Academ y school is a par adigm e xample of boundary cr ossing and the
tying to gether of inno vation, inclusion and r egeneration in r elation to the
requir ements of the w orkplace – the discourse of the SWS in action:
Private actors
The thir d positioning in this account and its conceptual r esour ces are inter -
actional. I deplo y the words and utilise the perspecti ves of a r ange of actors
within the ESI w hom I intervie wed (21 in all; see the A ppendix and Bo x 1.2).
I tak e their accounts v ery seriousl y but situa te these within the discursi ve and
structur al frameworks adumbr ated a bove. These accounts pr ovide important
insights into the ne w subject positions w hich ar e made a vailable within
‘entrepreneurial go vernance’ (Hall 2003). These actors r epresent subjecti -
vities which fit within the comple xity of ne w for ms of go vernance and these
are blurr ed and elude simple ca tegorisa tions. Ther e are strong common ele-
ments acr oss the intervie ws in ter ms of moti ves, purposes and v alues which
are meaningful and po werful within the conte xt of desta talisa tion and the
re-articula ting of ‘the r elationship betw een or ganiza tions and tasks’ (J essop
2002: 199) across the pub lic–private divide. These actors embod y a new kind
of self-understanding and a ne w set of str ategic capacities and inter ests. They
Privatisation(s)
Let me try to delinea te no w my use of the ter m ‘privatisation’ because it
is at the centr e of my concerns and will be used as a shorthand thr oughout
the book. I sa y a shorthand because a v ariety of pr ocesses is actuall y involved
here. It is mor e appr opria te perha ps to think a bout ‘pri vatisations’. Ther e is
a wide variety of types and f or ms of pri vatisation in volving di fferent financial
arr angements and di fferent r elationships betw een funders , service pr oviders
and clients (see Cha pter 3). Clear ly, pri vatisation in gener al ter ms also has
a long history . It has been the nor mal way of going a bout things in ter ms
of things lik e textbook pr oduction and sales (see A pple 1986), testing pr o-
grammes, equipment and b uilding for man y years. Privatisation is old b ut
also very new. ‘The sta te has al ways bought and sold pr operty , pur chased
services and encour aged enterprise b ut the scale of pri vatization in the past
two decades has been unpar alleled’, a ‘relentless rolling pr ocess’ (Whit field
2001: 75). Contempor ary pri vatisation is part of a m uch br oader and mor e
fundamental r e-design of the pub lic sector, as outlined a bove. This in volves
private and not-f or-pr ofit companies and v oluntary and comm unity or ganisa -
tions and NGOs and par asta tal or ganisa tions in income-gener ating acti vities
inside the pub lic sector. Ther e is also a r elatively new kind of ‘philanthr opic
privatisation’, to w hich I shall r eturn in Cha pter 5. The ne wer for ms of pri vat-
isation mean tha t the distinction betw een ‘har d’ and ‘soft’ services, books and
educa tional media, etc., on the one hand, and ‘those services w hich r equir e
human inter action’ (Bo yles 2000: 118), on the other , is now thor oughl y
breached – the pri vate sector oper ates acr oss this di vide. Ther e are no service
areas which ar e exempt fr om pri vate sector participa tion, although ther e are
some where it appears , as yet, onl y infrequentl y. The sta te is incr easingly
re-positioned as the guar antor , not necessaril y the pr ovider (W hite 1998: 3)
nor the financer , of opportunity goods lik e educa tion. This is not a ‘fr ee
mar ket’ in an y simple sense; neither is it simpl y imposed b y the sta te. Ho w-
ever, as I shall demonstr ate later the sta te is very much a mar ket-mak er or
broker in r elation to the ESI.
As for a ca tegorisa tion of types , I want to suggest a set of ca tegories tha t ar e
practical and flexible rather than a bsolutel y precise and full y compr ehensive
14 Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions
(presented in Cha pter 3) b ut which tak es account of both first-or der pri vatisa-
tion – in ter ms of o wnership , organisa tion f or ms, financial r elations, etc. – and
second-or der pri vatisation – in ter ms of the implica tions f or social r elations,
social space , family responsibilities , citizenship and democr acy, and w hich also
incorpor ates the pri vatisation of go vernance or w hat Mahon y et al. (2004)
refer to as ‘pri vatising policy’. In educa tion ther e is a further , specific dimen-
sion to pri vatisation or mor e precisely commer cialisation (Molnar 2005) or
what is called in the US ‘cola-risa tion’ – ‘where income is deri ved from vending
machines , displa ys of sponsors lo gos and ad vent of TV ad vertisements
streamed a t students via Channel One tele vision’ (Fitz and Beers 2002: 140)
(see Educa tion P olicy Studies La bor atory, Arizona Sta te Uni versity). This is
what Boyles (2000) describes as ‘schools as sites f or consumer ma terialism’. In
this country the F ood Commission, and others , have raised concerns o ver the
Cadb ury’s chocola te and W alker’s crisps pr omotions w hich tar get school chil-
dren thr ough schemes to collect tok ens to wards school equipment. The major
super mar kets also r egular ly run such schemes . The NUT estima tes tha t br ands
are now spending £300 million a y ear tar geting classr oom consumers . In ad di-
tion commer cial companies ar e also incr easingly involved in the pr oduction
of for mal or inf or mal curriculum ma terials and educa tional r esour ces, some-
times unackno wledged, 12 and Buckingham and Scanlon (2005: 42) note tha t
‘Parents ar e being placed under incr easing pr essure to “in vest” in their child-
ren’s education b y providing ad ditional r esour ces at home’. T ogether with the
growth in the use of pri vate tutors (Ir eson 2004) and other enrichment acti v-
ities for childr en (Vincent and Ball 2006) and the incr easing importance being
given to home-based e-learning, this points to y et another f or m of pri vatisa-
tion, the pri vatisation of learning itself; ‘the o verall value of the educa tional
resour ces mar ket (including print and digital media) in the UK is ar ound £350
million per y ear’ (Buckingham and Scanlon 2005: 42). It seems clear tha t the
child and childhood ar e now thor oughl y satur ated b y mar ket relations and,
within this sa tur ation, the meaning of childhood and w hat it means to be w ell
educa ted ar e subject to signi ficant change . As K enway and Bullen (2001: 3)
argue, ‘we are entering another sta ge in the construction of the y oung as the
demar cations betw een educa tion, entertainment and ad vertising colla pse’.
The typolo gy also dr aws attention to the global conte xt of educa tional pri vat-
isation, w hich is undoubtedl y of incr easing importance . But w hile I will
address some aspects of the interna tional dimensions of educa tional pri vatisa-
tion I will not deal speci fically with the impact of GA TS (see Rik owski 2001,
2003, and on the r ole of the pri vate sector in Eur opean Comm unity policy-
making see Ha tcher and Hirtt 1999 and R obertson 2006). I also mak e use of
the distinction betw een what Ha tcher (2000) calls e xogenous and endo genous
privatisation. W here the for mer involves private companies entering educa tion
to tak e over dir ectly responsibilities , services or pr ogrammes, the la tter r efers
to changes in the beha viour of pub lic sector or ganisa tions themselv es, where
they act as though they w ere businesses, both in r elation to clients and w orkers,
and in dealings with other pub lic sector or ganisa tions.
Privatisation(s): tools, meanings, positions 15
The existing liter atur e on social and educa tional pri vatisation in England is
extensive but is also narr owly focused, fr agmentary and primaril y discursi ve
and tends to under-estima te and homo genise the impact and spr ead of pri vat-
isation in English educa tion. Gr een’s (2005) account is the most compr ehen-
sive, and F arns worth (2004: 1) in vestigates ‘business views and in fluence on
social policy outcomes’ including educa tion. Much of the other w ork rests on
rather lazy binaries w hich contr ast a particular v ersion of ‘the pri vate’ with
a particular , often r osy, version of ‘the pub lic’, which Gr een avoids. I want to
move beyond a simple juxta position of pub lic/private to e xplor e the b lurrings
and elisions betw een them and to anal ytically audit in a criticall y constructi ve
fashion the di fferent pri vatisations curr ently under w ay, as well as to r e-insert
and r e-assess the r ole of the sta te in r elation to pri vatisation. I shall consider
the possibility tha t pri vatisation can ha ve par ado xical effects, good and bad
together, and tha t the small particulars of pri vatisation might contrib ute to
larger-scale social and political changes .
In this cha pter I outline an anal ytic history of pri vatisation and intr oduce the
primary policy technolo gies of pub lic sector r efor m. I intend to situa te educa -
tion policy within a br oader fr amework of pub lic sector r efor m. Following
from the pr evious cha pter, the changing r ole of the sta te, from the KNWS to
an SWS , is a centr al featur e of the account, alongside and in r elation to ne w
political narr atives. Mor e specifically, I shall seek to demonstr ate tha t recent
educa tion policy mo ves have established a fr amework of possibility and legit-
imacy for pri vatisation and I will look a t some of the elements of a ‘discourse
of pri vatisation’ which r e-articula tes pub lic services as commodities tha t
can be bought and sold b ut which also facilita tes the modernisa tion of the
educa tion system and its r e-articula tion in ter ms of the r equir ements of
interna tional competiti veness.
You can’t run on y our or dinary b udget, e veryone kno ws tha t, so you ha ve
to get in volved in various initia tives and ca ter for tha t, the initia tive’s
Privatisation(s) in contexts 23
priorities , and bend y our curriculum and y our priorities in or der to get
hold of tha t bit of money .
(Deputy Headteacher , Mer chants’ School)
Second is a r edistrib ution of funds a way from dir ect funding of pub lic sector
organisa tions and local authorities to contr act funding of pri vate, voluntary
and quasi-pub lic organisa tions f or the deli very of pub lic services and a con-
comitant pr ocess of making sta te agencies into fr ee-standing, self- financing
organisa tions.
Educa tion Action Zones (EAZs), an initia tive launched in 1998 (see Ge wirtz
1999), offer an e xample of a short-li ved policy e xperiment w hich br ought
together a n umber of the ne w for ms of funding and of local social r elations
which typify the Thir d Way aspects of the competition sta te. First, ther e is the
use of contr acting as a means of r esour ce alloca tion, b y which local partner-
ships, including b usiness partners , had to tender f or Zone sta tus. Applicants
had to demonstr ate their willingness to incorpor ate the goals and structur es
laid do wn by government into their Zone plans . The documenta tion f or bid -
ders was very explicit about w hat was expected. Once a ppr oved, Zones w ere
expected to bid f or funding f or other go vernment initia tives – specialist
schools, work-related learning, famil y literacy schemes and ear ly-years excel-
lence centr es – and to ‘b uild on na tional initia tives such as liter acy and
numer acy hours’ (DfEE 1997: 8), and part of the assessment of bids w as to
be based on their ‘v alue for money’. The guidance notes f or Zone a pplicants
also made clear the need f or bid ders to ‘Identify r elevant perf or mance indica -
tors , where possib le directly attached to tar gets for impr ovement’ (DfEE
1998: 3).
In ad dition, Zones w ere encour aged to put f orward pr oposals f or inno vative
sta ff contr acts and the flexible use of sta ff. Zones w hich chose to dis-a pply
the Teachers’ P ay and Conditions Or der could, f or example, mak e weekend
and school holida y working a contr actual ob ligation. EAZs ar e one example
of what I ter m a policy condensate (see also Cha pter 7), an ensemb le of
focused policy ideas w hich work to tie educa tion to ‘the kno wledge-based
accum ulation str ategy’ (Jessop 2002: 167) of the Ne w Labour competition
state. Several elements r ecur in la ter policy e xamples (see Cha pter 5) –
partnerships , including cr oss-sector w orking and institutional colla bor ations,
a local r ather than institutional f ocus, pri vate or v oluntary sector participa -
tion, der egulation, tar get setting and inno vation. In particular r elation to
educa tion, although the pr ecept was applied elsewhere, EAZs ar e also an
example of ‘standar ds not structur es’. The EAZs contr acts were fixed-ter m
and did not bring into being ne w per manent structur es and r elationships .
Rather the EAZs pr ovided a test-bed f or str ategies and ideas w hich would be
developed further in la ter policies . They also serv ed to push back the limits of
refor m, to mak e ideas for mor e refor m plausib le and ther efore possib le. Again
key boundaries within the pub lic sector and betw een the pub lic and pri vate
sectors w ere breached and r e-worked. I will r eturn to these in la ter cha pters.
24 Privatisation(s) in contexts
Commodification is the thir d key facet of the destructi veness/creativity of
refor m – in making tr ansfor mation possib le by re-working for ms of service,
social r elations and pub lic processes into f or ms tha t ar e measur able and thus
contr acta ble or mar ketable, and in cr eating spaces f or pri vatisation within the
pub lic sector (of both har d and soft services). I shall r eturn to this point a
number of times . Commodi fication is both then cause and e ffect in r elation to
privatisation. The r eplacement of social r elations with e xchange r elations is
an e ffect of ‘pri vatisation’ b ut is also a pr e-condition and has in volved pack-
aging services in ways tha t ‘prioritise the inter ests of contr actors’ (W hit field
2001: 73); they ar e ‘reconfigured’. ‘What mak es something, or some service , a
commodity is tha t it is pr oduced f or sale, which means pr oducing it in such a
way as to mak e it saleable’ (Leys 2001: 87). This is done in part to encour age
the de velopment of ne w mar kets and a ttr act pri vate pr oviders; where none
existed. W hole ne w for ms of commer cial acti vity have emerged – like teacher
suppl y agencies, ‘improvement’ pr oducts , etc. (see Cha pter 6). Cern y (1990:
230) argues tha t:
As I shall ar gue, part of the w ork of perf or mativity is the technical and
discursi ve re-imagining of educa tion as a commodity .
At a pr actical le vel of or ganisa tional r e-design ther e are thr ee distinct b ut
related facets to the destructi ve ‘creativity’ of the tr ansfor mation or r efor m
process. Thr ee different policy technolo gies were brought to bear upon and
within the pub lic sector – mar kets, (new) mana gerialism (or Ne w Pub lic
Mana gement) and perf or mativity. Working to gether they ha ve brought a bout
the ‘modernisa tion’ of the ‘or ganisa tion ecolo gy’ (Jessop 2002) of schools –
and each has also contrib uted in particular w ays to the pr ocesses of pri vatisa-
tion. Each technolo gy is a for m of discipline and r egulation, and to gether
they constitute a ne w regime of pub lic sector r egulation. I ha ve written a bout
these elsewhere and will r ehearse them onl y briefly here (see for example Ball
1998, 2001, 2002).
Markets
The mar ket, thr ough the medium of v arious f or ms of choice and competi-
tion, as with the other technolo gies, is polymorphic; it is or ganised and
applied in di fferent ways in different parts of the pub lic sector, beginning with
CCT, which opened a w hole r ange of har d services up f or pr ofit and o ffered
pub lic sector a gencies the possibility of choice of supplier , thr ough to par -
ental choice of school and per ca pita funding and thus competition betw een
schools for ‘valued’ students and families (Ball 1994), to systems of competi-
Privatisation(s) in contexts 25
tive bidding for tar geted funds . Once the model of bid ding is esta blished it
becomes both technicall y and cultur ally feasible to extend the r ange of those
who might be a ble to bid bey ond esta blished pub lic sector pr oviders.
The intima te imbrica tion of mana gerialism, mar kets and the incr easing
presence of the pri vate sector in pub lic service provision is well illustr ated b y
the example of social car e. The cr eation of social car e mar kets came a little
later on the Conserv atives’ agenda of pub lic sector r efor ms. They w ere initi-
ated b y the 1990 NHS and Comm unity Car e Act and implemented betw een
1991 and 1993 based on the principles of needs-led and user-centr ed services
and they w ere intended to deli ver ‘choice, cost-e ffectiveness and inno vation’
but what was different her e was tha t the r efor ms also in volved the pr omotion
of the inter ests of pri vate car e service providers. Local authority social ser-
vice departments w ere to assume the r esponsibility f or making and mana ging
local social car e mar kets as pur chasers of services fr om independent pr o-
viders and withdr aw from or massi vely reduce their service pr ovision r ole.
This is a pr ecursor of curr ent de velopments in educa tional service . Indeed
some of the pri vate pr oviders of social car e services would la ter de velop an
inter est in the educa tion services mar ket.
(New) managerialism
New mana gerialism is the lo gical concomitant of the mar ket and lo gical
antidote to the ‘failings’ of pub lic sector b ureaucr acy and cultur e. ‘The new
mana gerialism emphasiz ed inno vation, cr eativity and empo werment’ (Clar ke
2004: 117). The ne w mana gers ar e policy entr epreneurs, ‘motivated, r esour ce-
ful, and a ble to shift the fr ame of r eference beyond the esta blished nor ms and
procedur es’ (Exworth y and Half ord 1999: 6). The ne w mana ger is the com-
petition sta te writ small, although in both rhetoric and pr actice ne w mana ge-
rialism is a r agbag of models , values and purposes – as is the competition
state. At heart mana gerialism ‘is a nor mative system concerning w hat counts
as valua ble kno wledge, who kno ws it, and w ho is empo wered to act in w hat
ways as a consequence’ (Clar ke et al. 2000: 9). In a pplica tion to the pub lic
sector this in volves a decisive reconstitution of po wer relations. In line with
the periodisa tion of r efor m suggested a bove several writers ha ve made the
point tha t in ter ms of the f or m of mana gerialism in pla y ‘there is an import-
ant di fference betw een the Ne w Right model and Ne w Labour’s moderniza -
tion str ategy’ (Thrupp and W illmott 2003: 31). W hile the Ne w Right model
was outcomes-based, ‘Ne w Labour’s v ersion is m uch mor e interv entionist,
and consider ably mor e mana gerialist. Outcomes r emain the f ocus b ut they
are now constituted as tar gets and benchmar ks rather than comparisons with
other institutions’ (F ergusson 2000: 208). F ergusson goes on to char acterise
this change as a shift fr om nor m referencing to criterion r eferencing.
The spr ead of (ne w) mana gerialism thr ough the pub lic sector began in the
civil service, in the ear ly 1980s, with the Financial Mana gement Initia tive
(1982). This was quickl y followed by the cr eation of tr ading accounts and
26 Privatisation(s) in contexts
new executive responsibilities in local go vernment and the changes br ought
out in the NHS b y the implementa tion of the Gri ffiths R eport (1983). In
educa tion the incursions of mana gement began some what later via the intr o-
duction of Local Mana gement of Schools (Educa tion R efor m Act 1988). A
report commissioned b y the then DES fr om accountants and mana gement
consultants Coopers & L ybrand (1988) described the implementa tion of
LMS in schools as r equiring ‘a ne w cultur e and philosoph y of school or gan-
ization’ (p. 2). The pri vate sector w as crucial in setting or inf or ming the
refor m agenda fr om the outset, bringing its commer cial wisdom to bear , and
the model of using consultants to ad vise on, dr aft, implement or e valua te key
aspects of the r efor m agenda w as esta blished ear ly. Incr easingly policy was
articula ted in the langua ge and methods of b usiness. LMS w as also the first
move in a series of shifts a way from local democr atic contr ol of educa tion
budgets to wards a combina tion of centr al and indir ect ‘devolved’ financial
contr ols. In an intervie w at the time a senior ci vil servant e xplained to me tha t
“the Bill, it seems to me , is about r educing the po wer of local authorities ,
tha t’s what the Bill is a bout” (quoted in Ball 1990: 69).
Again though, mana gement is not simpl y a means to e ffect change in
the pub lic sector ; it is an opportunity f or b usiness for the pri vate sector
(see Box 2.2). Mana gement has mo ved over the past 20 y ears fr om being an
imper ative in the pub lic sector to being a commodity , for which the pub lic
sector is an incr easingly important customer (see Cha pter 6 on ‘selling
impr ovement’).
Gener ally, while the 1980s began with a policy emphasis on financial
restraint, b y the end of the decade the emphasis had shifted to a m uch br oader
concern with the r e-design of the or ganisa tion and mana gement of pub lic
sector institutions or , as Schick (1990: 26) e xplains, the objecti ve of such
interv entions , and ther e were similar de velopments in other English-speaking
Performativity
The final k ey component in the triumvir ate of r efor m is perfor mativity, which
ties the e ffort of mana gement to the inf or mation systems of the mar ket and
customer choice-making and/or to the tar get and benchmar k requir ements
of the sta te. Indeed the contr action ‘perf or mance mana gement’ denotes a
particular f or m and d ynamic of mana gerialism. Accor ding to Husbands
(2001: 10) perfor mance mana gement w orks on and thr ough schools in tw o
ways: in a limited w ay ‘to the e xtent to w hich [it] focuses school leadership on
the cor e tasks of enhancing pupil pr ogress against measur able criteria; b ut
expansi ve in the e xtent to w hich the langua ge and assumptions of perf or m-
ance mana gement describe a cultur al refocusing of schooling’, tha t is ‘schools
become incr easingly subject to “bottom line” judgements of their standar ds
or outputs’ (Fitz and Beers 2002: 144). P erfor mance mana gement does not
simply change the w ays in which schools w ork; it changes the w ay we think
about schools and learning and it changes ho w teachers think a bout their
work and their r elationships with pupils .
Perfor mativity is a cultur e and a mode of r egulation. The perf or mances of
individual subjects or or ganisa tions serv e as measur es of pr oducti vity or out-
put, or displa ys of ‘quality’, or ‘moments’ of pr omotion or inspection. They
stand f or, encapsula te or r epresent the w orth, quality or v alue of an indi -
vidual or or ganisa tion within a field of judgement. P erfor mativity is about
driving out poor perf or mance, inefficiencies and r edundancies – it is a bout
focus. It is insa tiable. It is achie ved thr ough the construction and pub lication
of infor mation and the dri ve to name , differentia te and classify . Perfor mativity
is intima tely intertwined with the seducti ve possibilities of a particular kind
of economic (r ather than mor al) ‘autonom y’, what Ed wards (2000: 154) calls
‘coercive autonom y’, for both institutions and in some cases indi viduals – lik e
headteachers . Perfor mativity works to ‘tie things to gether’ and r e-mak e them.
It facilita tes the monitoring r ole of the sta te: ‘steering-a t-a-distance’, ‘govern-
ing without go vernment’, ‘the politics of clarity’ (Gir oux 1992). It allo ws the
state to insert itself deepl y into the cultur e, pr actices and subjecti vities of
pub lic sector or ganisa tions and their w orkers, without a ppearing to do so . It
changes tha t which it ‘indica tes’; it changes meaning; it deli vers re-design and
28 Privatisation(s) in contexts
ensur es ‘alignment’. It objecti fies and commodi fies pub lic sector work; the
kno wledge work of educa tional institutions is r ender ed into ‘outputs’, ‘levels
of perf or mance’ and ‘f or ms of quality’, tha t is this pr ocess of objecti fication
contrib utes mor e generally to the possibility of thinking a bout social services
like educa tion as forms of production, as ‘just lik e’ services of other kinds and
other kinds of pr oduction. The ‘soft’ services lik e teaching w hich r equir e
‘human inter action’ ar e re-made to be just lik e the ‘har d’ services (book
suppl y, tr ansport, ca tering, instructional media). They ar e standar dised,
calcula ted, quali fied and compar ed. Mor e generally perfor mativity works
to edge pub lic sector or ganisa tions into a con vergence with the pri vate
sector.
Thr ough the combina tion of these policy technolo gies a new relationship
of the sta te to the pub lic sector is pr oduced and a t the same time service
provision is made ‘contesta ble and competiti ve’ and ‘corpor atization and
privatization ar e important policy options in this conte xt’ (OECD 1995: 9).
The r efor m pr ocess and the changing r ole of the social democr atic sta te is
then part of a br oader tr ansfor mation in political ar chitectur e. The shift fr om
responsibility f or deli very to r esponsibility f or commissioning, contr acting
and measur ement and audit opens up the possibility of tw o further policy
moves. First, it becomes possib le for the sta te to consider a v ariety of potential
service deliverers – pub lic, voluntary and pri vate. This intr oduces contest-
ability, competition betw een potential deli verers on the basis of ‘best service’
and/or v alue for money and in volves the use of commer cial models of ten-
dering and contr acting. Second, it becomes possib le to consider alterna tive
models of funding and the participa tion of pri vate funders in the de velop-
ment of the pub lic sector infr astructur e. One v ersion of this , in the UK, is
what is called the Pri vate Finance Initia tive (or Pub lic Private Partnerships).
These arr angements in volve private sector pr oviders in the b uilding and
mana gement of schools , hospitals , uni versity plant, etc. on a lease-back and
mana gement contr act basis . In most of these cases pub lic sector dir ect labour
is replaced b y the contr actor , and some commenta tors fear tha t at some point
such contr act la bour ma y extend bey ond ca tering, cleaning, maintenance ,
security, etc. (har d services) to the cor e tasks of teaching, r esearch, etc. (soft
services). In fact this mo ve is already under w ay – not onl y thr ough contr acts
to run schools , but in the design and mana gement of Academies , thr ough
advice, consultancy and CPD and the pr ovision of teaching and learning
software by whiteboar d companies .
Within social policy r esearch ther e is a series of hotl y contested de bates
around these issues and the a ppr opria te ways of theorising changes in the
welfare state. Ho wever, ther e is also a lot of common gr ound (Cochr ane et al.
2001). Several key points within these de bates ar e helpful in making sense of
educa tion policy . First, as Esping-Andersen (1996) points out and as noted
already, in the UK as else where in Eur ope these ar e ‘welfare states in tr ansi-
tion’, tha t is mo ving and changing fr om where they were to some where else;
the changes ar e not ended. Second, the ongoing changes ar e not a bsolute , the
Privatisation(s) in contexts 29
replacement of one w elfare regime by another ; rather ther e is a new ‘welfare
mix’ or ‘welfare plur alism’ (Rao 1996) or ‘mix ed economies of w elfare’
(Johnson 1999). Further mor e, not onl y are these changes partial, in volving
‘residual a ttachments’ (Clar ke 2004: 154), but they ar e neither in one dir ec-
tion nor one-dimensional – ‘complete design of go vernance structur es is
impossib le’ (OECD 1995: 9). Clar ke does go on to sa y tha t the sta tus of these
residuals and the degr ee of attachment to them ar e questiona ble. All this
means tha t, as Clar ke et al. (2001: 104–5) put it, ‘it is har d to pr oduce a
satisfactory synoptic o verview of these changes because they ar e uneven,
contr adictory and contested. Ther e is no single tr end of dir ection of change’.
The composite and sometimes incoher ent na tur e of change is a char acteristic
of the SWS .
Ho wever, ther e are problems with these social policy accounts; they ar e
almost e xclusively focused on the sta te at a na tional le vel and on citiz enship
and tend to neglect the r elationships of w elfare to the econom y, either as
functionall y related to competiti veness or as a f ocus for pr ofit, tha t is the
subor dina tion of ‘social policy to the demands of la bour mar ket flexibility
and/or emplo yability and the per ceived imper atives of structur al or systemic
competiti veness’ (Jessop 2001: 298). Pri vatisation or w hat is called ‘corpor -
ate welfare’ is generally given little a ttention in these accounts and, w hen
it is, the focus is on the ‘famialisa tion’ of w elfare, or the r ewriting of ‘the
relationship betw een sta te and citiz en, while refor ming the sta te’ (Clar ke
2004: 67).
We do need to think a bout and theorise w elfare changes in r elation to
changes in the sta te and citiz enship and tha t is centr al to m y anal ysis, but
also, and perha ps especially in the case of educa tion and tr aining, w e need to
explor e their r elations to the econom y – in at least thr ee senses:
The technolo gies of pub lic sector r efor m work in comple x ways to bring
about pr actical, cultur al and discursi ve changes. They combine to r e-work
organisa tional ecolo gies and the ecolo gy of the sta te. They change the w ays
in which we think a bout the pub lic sector and its r elationships and pr actices.
In particular they ha ve the effect of making the pub lic sector amena ble to
privatisation(s) – endo genous and e xogenous. They constitute a political
imaginary mor e subtle and elusi ve than tha t of the Ne w Right. I w ant to
move on no w to look a t some of the w ays in which this ima ginary is dis-
semina ted within educa tion policy , tha t is the w ays in which Thir d Way
educa tion policy cele brates the virtues of di versity, entr epreneurship and pri -
vatisation and links educa tion in dir ect and indir ect ways to globalisa tion and
interna tional competiti veness. One of T ony Blair’s declar ed aims is to “mak e
this country a t ease with globalisa tion” (27 September 2005).
30 Privatisation(s) in contexts
Discourse of privatisation
The discourse of pri vatisation and of ‘the pri vate’ is ubiquitous in educa tion
policy sta tements . It is perv asive, polymorphic and insidious . Within this
discourse , educa tion is r e-articula ted as a r esour ce for the econom y, tha t is
as pr oducti ve, as income-gener ating and as a commodity (see Bo x 2.3 for
examples).
Entrepreneurial spirit
The ne w educa tion Bill gi ves schools po wers to cr eate companies
and run post o ffices.
(TES Weekly Newsletter, 24 No vember 2001)
We can alr eady see how important educa tion and skills ar e for indi vidual
and collecti ve prosperity . . . On a global scale , half the incr ease in the
ann ual gr owth of pr oducti vity comes fr om ne w ideas and w ays of doing
things. The fastest-gr owing cities in America and Eur ope ar e those with
the highest pr oportion of kno wledge workers.
(Tony Blair, ‘Kno wledge 2000’, Confer ence on the
Kno wledge Dri ven Econom y)
In its dir ectness and single-mindedness this discourse is incr easingly familiar
and inesca pable. Pub lic sector institutions ar e being ‘re-thought’ as pr ofit
opportunities . Underpinning this is an e ffective policy tr ope which celebrates
the ‘superiority’ of pri vate sector mana gement, in ‘partnership’ with the sta te,
over and a gainst the conserv ative, bureaucr atic and unr esponsi ve modality of
pub lic sector mana gement, although the pub lic sector is not without its o wn
pock ets of ‘excellence’ and not all e xperiments in pri vatisation succeed.
The weakness of our pub lic services has not been their ina bility to achie ve
excellence, but the fact tha t it is too thinl y spread, with opportunities and
high quality pr ovision too often r estricted to a minority . . . Sur e, ther e
are risks. It won’t al ways work. But taking risks is part of change leading
to impr ovement.
(Prime Minister’s speech on pub lic service refor m, 16 October 2001,
available online: http://www .number10.go v.uk/output/
Page1632.asp from www.dir ect.gov.uk )
Finall y, her e I want to e xamine Ne w Labour policy talk a little mor e and
point up some of the components of the political discourse of pri vatisation
and the v ariety of w ays in which they ar e intima tely tied to competiti veness
on the one hand and the r ole of the pri vate sector in the r e-design or tr ans-
for mation of the pub lic sector on the other . This will highlight a n umber of
themes and ter ms which r ecur thr ough the book, and the use of some of these
Privatisation(s) in contexts 33
ter ms and the ‘w ork’ they do will be ad dressed mor e fully in later cha pters.
This is an initial f oray into a pr ogramma tic discourse tha t ‘highlights the
contr ast betw een ter ms tha t represent a ster eotyped and demoniz ed past and
those o ffering a visionary and idealiz ed futur e’ (Clarke and Ne wman 1997:
49). I ha ve chosen to gi ve special attention to the w ords of Tony Blair b ut
ther e are innumer able other sites f or and sour ces of the discourse in W hite
Papers, government w ebsites, other political utter ances, etc.
Within the comple x and e xpansi ve rhetoric of Ne w Labour the ter ms I want
to dr awn attention to ar e: ‘transfor mation’, ‘modernisa tion’, ‘innovation’,
‘risk’, ‘dynamism’, ‘creativity’ and ‘competiti veness’ (for the r elationship of
these to technolo gy see Cha pter 6); other ter ms like ‘partnerships’, ‘flexibility’
and ‘collabor ation’ ar e given attention in other cha pters. These ar e ter ms,
except ‘competition’ perha ps, which ha ve no necessary e xclusivity to the
private sector b ut ar e often deplo yed as though they did, f or example ‘the
celebration of “cr eativity” as an essential element of b usiness’ (Jones 2003:
164). They ar e tak en to be qualities of and to e xemplify entr epreneurism and
enterprise , key signifiers tha t also r ecur. They often a ppear in te xts as colloca -
tions – co-occurr ences; tha t is they ar e linked to gether as an ensemb le and ar e
chronotopicall y related to a sense of the pace , movement and constant change
tha t ar e tak en to de fine globalisa tion, the globalised econom y and w orld cities.
They set the inadequacies , particular ly the slo wness and unr esponsi veness
and risk a version of the pub lic sector prior to r efor m, over and a gainst the
‘idealised’ alterna tive.1 The shift fr om the f or mer to the la tter is tak en to be
necessary and ine vitable and r elated to economic r ather than social pr essures
and needs , the ur gent demands of globalisa tion. ‘Complaining a bout global-
ization is as pointless as trying to turn back the tide . Asian competition
can’t be shut out; it can onl y be bea ten. And no w, by every relative mea-
sure of a modern econom y, Eur ope is la gging’ (Tony Blair, Newsweek, http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11020913/site/ne wsweek/). This is the ‘necessarian
logic of Ne w Labour’s political econom y’ (Watson and Ha y 2003). The pub -
lic sector m ust be r e-made to r espond to the e xigence (Edwards and Nicoll
2001), tha t is to globalisa tion, and to pla y its part in the economics of
competition. Indi vidual and institutional actors and their dispositions and
responses ar e tied to the fa te of the na tion within the global econom y.
The purpose of the r efor ms is to cr eate a modern educa tion system and a
modern NHS w here, within le vels of investment a t last coming up to the
average of our competitors , real po wer is put in the hands of those w ho
use the service , the pa tient and the par ent, where the changes becoming
self-sustaining, the system open, di verse, flexible, able to adjust and ada pt
to the changing w orld.
(Prime Minister T ony Blair r eflects on ‘pi votal moment’
for educa tion, 10 Do wning Str eet, 24 October 2005)
Ther e is an easil y graspa ble narr ative here, an ‘insistent singularity’ (du Ga y
34 Privatisation(s) in contexts
2000: 78) which links the intimacies of educa tional pr actices to the global
econom y. As F airclough (2000: 158) e xplains, ‘the work of politics or go v-
ernment is partl y done in the ma terial of te xts – it gets into the te xtur e of
texts’. Ur gency, inevitability and r adical change ar e part of this te xtur e, creat-
ing a policy ontolo gy within w hich pub lic sector actors ar e made ne w kinds
of subjects . The lack of clarity and coher ence in these sta tements , how the
elements ar e joined up , is unimportant and is o vercome b y reiteration, and
within the te xts ther e is a constant pla y of key binaries , some of w hich ar e
collapsed while at the same time others ar e ramified and r eified often in
fantastical w ays as what F airclough (p . 10) calls ‘impossib le alterna tives’.
“Enterprise and fairness . Tha t is our goal” (T ony Blair, ‘Kno wledge 2000’,
Confer ence on the Kno wledge Dri ven Econom y, http://mb bnet.umn.edu/
doric/econom y.html ). The rhetoric her e writes a history of the pub lic sector
tha t is epideictic, an alloca tion of pr aise and b lame. Ther e is a dialo gue tha t
places the ‘old’ pub lic sector in contr ast to a ‘modern’ pub lic sector and the
‘new’ economy and as a thr eat to competiti veness; it is cast as an anachr onism,
an irr elevance.
[W]e must let the systems change and de velop. The old monolithic struc-
tur es won’t do . We can’t engineer change and impr ovement thr ough b ur-
eaucr atic edict. Hence the r efor m pr ogramme . . . It is not our tax and
fiscal positions w hich ar e holding us back as a na tion. It is pr oducti vity
and the sta te of our pub lic services.
(Prime Minister’s speech on pub lic service refor m, 16 October 2001,
available online: http://www .number10.go v.uk/output/
Page1632.asp from www.dir ect.gov.uk )
Bureaucr acy stulti fies creativity and inhibits inno vation, w hich ar e sometimes
natur al qualities (of the na tion) tha t ar e being suppr essed and m ust be
‘released’ but sometimes need to be imported (fr om the pri vate sector).
‘Toda y the British people ar e char acteriz ed by creativity, ingenuity, and
imagination. Ther e is a new dynamism in our country . . . educa tion is our
No . 1 domestic priority . Tha t is the k ey to economic success and social just-
ice’ (Tony Blair, ‘The Ne w Britain’, DL C, New Democrat, 1 Mar ch 1998). The
Privatisation(s) in contexts 35
rhetoric of r efor m also tightl y couples social justice , equity and maximis-
ing social and economic participa tion to enterprise and economic success .
Modernisa tion and change ar e all-embr acing; they ar e meritocr atic, an
escape from old social di visions, again in this w ay a for m of liber ation w hich
will allow creativity and passion to flourish unhamper ed. Her e individual and
collective well-being ar e totall y elided. Equity and enterprise , technolo gical
change and economic pr ogress are tied to gether within the e fforts , talents and
qualities of indi vidual people (see Cha pter 6 on this and on ‘peoplism’) and
the na tional collecti ve – the ‘us’ and the ‘w e’.
Refor m will not onl y deliver greater equality; it is also intima tely tied thr ough
the de velopment of skills and ‘ne w’ knowledge’ to the r equir ements of the
imaginary Kno wledge Econom y: and the f orging of “a na tion w here the cr e-
ative talents of all people ar e used to b uild a true enterprise econom y for the
21st century – w here we compete on br ains, not br awn” (Tony Blair, Color ado
Alliance for Arts Educa tion, http://www .artsedcolor ado .org/advocacy.cfm).
Centr al to the pr ocess of educa tion r efor m and to the insertion of d ynamism
and the achie vement or r elease of inno vation is the participa tion of ne w
players in the field of pub lic service delivery – the pri vate and v oluntary
sector. Blair himself pla ys a key role in pr oviding r ecurring rhetorical legitim-
ation f or a ‘di versity of pr oviders’ and the ‘failur es’ of unifor mity. The pri vate
36 Privatisation(s) in contexts
sector is not a simple ideolo gical pr eference as it w as under Tha tcherism; it is
a means to an end, a mechanism r ather than a belief system. Ther e is a
convergence of inter ests. ‘The pub lic sector is looking to the pri vate sector
for expertise, inno vation and mana gement of a ppr opria te risks. The pri vate
sector is looking f or b usiness opportunities , a stead y funding str eam and a
good r eturn on its in vestment’ (DfES Pub lic–Private Partnership w ebsite,
Ma y 2004). Indeed, the task of modernisa tion is pr esented as bey ond ideolo gy
and politics , which ar e distr actions fr om what must be done . “It is not
just in vestment tha t has held back r efor m. We have also been held back b y
ideolo gical clashes, going back decades , which ha ve distr acted fr om the r eal
challenge of impr oving our pub lic services” (Prime Minister’s speech on pub -
lic service refor m, 16 October 2001, a vailable online: http://www .number10.
gov.uk/output/P age1632.asp from www.dir ect.gov.uk ). Service delivery itself
is ‘depoliticised’ – policy, mana gement and pr actice ar e discursi vely inte-
grated. The pri vate sector also acts as a f or m of discipline , an alterna tive to
the pub lic sector if modernisa tion is r esisted or fudged. “If y ou ar e unwilling
or una ble to work to the modern a genda, then go vernment will ha ve to look
to other partners to tak e on your r ole” (Tony Blair’s ad dress to pub lic agen-
cies, 1998, cited in Ne wman 2001: 51). The pri vate sector is a compar ator and
a model to be em ulated: ‘we need to mak e sure tha t government services ar e
brought f orward using the best and most modern techniques , to ma tch the
best of the pri vate sector’ (Ca binet O ffice 1999: 5). As Jones puts it: ‘Blair
combines a mar ket-based r ecognition of “por osity” and the limits of go v-
ernment action with an assertion tha t governments should act decisi vely
within those fields where directive action is possib le’ (Jones 2003: 149). ‘Prime
Minister T ony Blair used his monthl y press confer ence to mak e clear his
deter mina tion to use pri vate-sector pr actice to push thr ough pub lic-sector
refor m. It w ould be a mistak e of “fundamental historic importance” to
change course no w, he said’ (Jon Sla ter, Guardian, 2 Ma y 2003).
In de veloping gr eater choice of pr ovider, the pri vate and v oluntary sec-
tors can pla y a role. Contr ary to m yth, no-one has e ver suggested they ar e
the answer. Or tha t they should r eplace pub lic services. But w here use of
them can impr ove pub lic services, nothing should stand in the w ay of
their use . In an y event, r ound the w orld, the barriers betw een pub lic,
private and v oluntary ar e coming do wn . . . if schools w ant a ne w rela-
tionship with b usiness in their comm unity, as man y do, let them . . . What
I’m saying is let the system br eathe; de velop; expand; let the inno vation
and cr eative ideas of pub lic servants be gi ven a chance to flourish.
(Prime Minister’s speech on pub lic service refor m, 16 October 2001,
available online: http://www .number10.go v.uk/output/
Page1632.asp from www.dir ect.gov.uk )
Schools a t the cutting edge of inno vation and colla bor ation will be
selected from amongst the country’s best schools as a le ver to tr ansfor m
secondary educa tion, to engineer the gr owth of colla bor ative learning
comm unities and feder ations, and to pr omote inno vation, r esearch and
development to push the boundaries of curr ent teaching pr actice.
(Leading Edge P artnerships , DfES w ebsite, 2004)
Constantl y, I meet pub lic servants w hom I find trul y inspiring; people
who ar e change mak ers and social entr epreneurs e very bit as ca pable and
creative as the best pri vate sector entr epreneurs. We need to encour age
them, to let di versity br eak do wn the old monoliths .
(Prime Minister’s speech on pub lic service refor m, 16 October 2001,
available online: http://www .number10.go v.uk/output/
Page1632.asp from www.dir ect.gov.uk )
In this cha pter and the ne xt I look in some detail a t the scale and scope and
comple xity of the educa tion services industry (ESI) and some of its internal
workings in the f or m of a descripti ve anal ysis. Such an e xercise will provide, I
hope , some clarity and pr ecision r egarding what is meant b y privatisation(s)
and specify some of the di versity of arr angements to w hich this ter m refers.
The cha pter will also intr oduce substanti ve issues which ar e tak en up in mor e
detail in the f ollowing cha pters.
Some bits of the ESI ar e high-pr ofile and ha ve received consider able press
and pub lic attention – LEA interv ention contr acts, for example, or the Acad-
emies programme or PFIs – b ut man y other facets of this e xtensive mar ket
remain r ather obscur e or neglected – lik e prison educa tion, consultancy w ork
within the DfES , induction schemes f or o verseas-tr ained teachers , work with
childr en out of school, pr oject mana gement, etc., etc. I will ar gue tha t the
extent and ‘v alue’ (to b usiness) of pri vate participa tion in pub lic education is
generally misunderstood and under-estima ted and ‘b lurr ed under a thousand
half-truths’ as P ollack (2004: vii) puts it in her e xamina tion of the pri vatisa-
tion of health car e. Further mor e, not onl y are the pri vatisations w hich the
ESI r epresents very diverse, but so too ar e the companies and gr oups w hich
participa te. The cha pter will pr ofile some of the ‘pla yers’ and detail some
of their di fferences in ter ms of size, ambition, v alues and history . The
chapter concludes with some pr eliminary gener alisations a bout the ESI and
privatisation and their r elationships to the changing r ole of the sta te.
Infrastructure
Infr astructur e mainl y concerns ca pital w orks, the b uilding or major r efurbish-
ment of school or uni versity b uildings and the installa tion of IT C systems
and connecti vity (e.g. Regional Grids of Learning). The Pri vate Finance
Initia tive is in some r espects the most r adical f or m of the pri vatisation of
pub lic services, involving the use of pri vate sector funding and o wnership to
provide new buildings and major r efurbishments . I do not intend to r ehearse
too m uch of the details of these schemes and initia tives here (some further
explana tion a ppears in Cha pter 6). R ather I w ant to r egister the siz e and
significance of PFI commitments and the inter est of the construction indus-
try in them and to note some of the disputes a bout PFI financing and
some issues a bout o wnership . It is important to note tha t PFI schemes oper -
ate right acr oss the pub lic sector. I also w ant to dr aw attention la ter to the
attempts of some of the infr astructur e companies to di versify into the softer
end of educa tion services , tha t is to mo ve across the boundaries betw een ESI
sectors.
The UK Pri vate Finance Initia tive was launched in la te 1992 by the
Conserv ative government. It encour ages pub lic authorities to ‘consider’
contr acting f or major ca pital assets and the facilities services associa ted
with their oper ation as a combined packa ge – DBFO (design, b uild, finance
and oper ate). Bid ders for these contr acts ar e nor mally a consortium (or
special purpose v ehicle) made up of b uilders, banks or pri vate equity com-
panies and sometimes a mana gement services compan y. See Box 3.2 for
examples.
By late 2004 ther e were 86 PFI schools pr ojects in England w orth £2.4
billion in volving o ver 500 schools , 15 in Scotland w orth £553 million, and tw o
in Wales. The o verall value of PFI deals in 2004 w as estima ted b y the Treas-
ury to be £7.7 billion, including £900 million f or educa tional and skills
projects.
Under PFI contr acts the pri vate sector compan y is responsib le for meet-
ing output speci fications set b y the pub lic sector authority . These ma y be
expressed in a wide v ariety of w ays reflecting the na tur e of the desir ed ser-
vices facility or system. The pri vate sector compan y carries the r esponsibility
and risk f or design, financing, pr oject mana gement and ongoing service
quality and deli very. Ho wever, man y critics of PFI, lik e the Associa tion of
Charter ed Certi fied Accountants and the Na tional A udit O ffice, ar gue tha t
the ‘risk-costing’ of these schemes , which is part of the v alue-for-money
calcula tions (in r elation to a pub lic sector compar ator, an estima te of the cost
of the pr oject if it w ere pub licly funded), is typicall y exaggerated. Risk-costing
tends to ensur e a built-in ad vanta ge to pri vate sector tenders o ver the pub lic
sector compar ator, and this is in turn a sour ce of short-ter m pr ofit when
borr owing costs ar e renegotia ted when construction is finished. These wind-
falls ar e now shar ed with the pub lic sector. PFI contr acts and b uildings and
facilities mana gement nor mally last for betw een 25 and 35 y ears, over which
time the pub lic agency (LEA, health trust) pa ys a monthl y lease and FM fee .
These fees ar e an ongoing cost to the pub lic authority ann ual b udget.
PFIs ar e enor mousl y attr active to construction companies and ha ve pro-
vided a ne w stability and consider able growth in the industry . The Major
Contr actors Gr oup (MCG), w hich lob bies government on behalf of the con-
struction industry , accepts tha t companies in volved in PFI w ork ‘expect to
mak e between thr ee and ten times as m uch money as they do on tr aditional
contr acts’. Bill Tallis, the Dir ector of MCG , said ‘construction firms tr ad-
itionall y received rates of r eturn of 1.5% to 2% on contr acts b ut were now
expecting mar gins of 7.5% to 15% on PFI b uilding schemes’ ( Corporate
Watch, 19 Mar ch 2004).
Scale and scope: education is big business 47
Once b uilding is complete , the contr actors ar e responsib le for FM and
oper ational services , although these contr acts ar e also sold on in some
cases (see pa ge 63) and they nor mally tak e on or r eplace the e xisting
workforce thr ough TUPE arr angements 3 (http://www .businesslink.go v.uk/
bdotg/action/la yer?&topicId=1074450319&tc=000KW021904512 ). For this
and other r easons PFIs and PPPs ar e staunchl y opposed b y pub lic sector
tr ade unions lik e the NUT and Unison:
Pub lic services are labour intensi ve and la bour costs can be a major
sour ce of potential sa vings and pr ofit to the pri vate sector . Until
emplo yees are fully protected a gainst contr actors cr eating a ‘tw o-tier
workforce’ by giving new sta ff inferior pa y and conditions , this will
remain a centr al issue for tr ade unions .
(Unison, ‘What is PFI?’, p . 18, http://www .unison.or g.uk
/acroba t/B1062.pdf )
In 2003 the Best Value Code of Practice on Workforce Matters was intr o-
duced, w hich sta ted tha t contr actors w ho intended to cut costs in this w ay
‘will not be selected to pr ovide services’ (par a. 3). Nonetheless , the tr ansfer of
workers from the pub lic to the pri vate sector and changes to their conditions
of work is one of a n umber of e xamples of the flexibilisation of la bour w hich
privatisation(s) bring a bout and part of a gr adual br eak-up of na tional union
and pr ofessional arr angements f or the emplo yment of educa tion services
workers which ‘disa ggregates pub lic services’ (Rutherf ord 2003: 44) and dis-
entangles ‘service provision fr om its social ties’ (p . 44). Pub lic services are
made objects of commer cial calcula bility. Perversely several local authority
pension funds (London, Ne wham and South Y orkshir e) are now investors in
a £400 million fund put to gether b y the Mill Gr oup to in vest in small-scale
PFI pr ojects.
PFI pr ojects ar e for ms of Pub lic Private Partnerships (PPPs), b ut PPPs
now embr ace a m uch wider r ange of possib le contr actual and colla bor ative
relationships betw een pub lic authorities and pri vate sector companies . The
ter m has become widel y used to describe initia tives to for m partnerships
between the pub lic and pri vate sectors ‘to enhance the v alue of pub lic sector
assets or to deli ver mor e efficient services’ (Serco website). Such schemes ar e
attr active to go vernment in tha t they a ppear to r educe pub lic borr owing
requir ements, although ther e are heated and technical de bates about the ‘r eal’
costs of PFI to the taxpa yer. They ar e also a ttr active to local authorities in
so far as they pr ovide funding f or ca pital b uilding w hich might w ell not
otherwise be f orthcoming. At a confer ence in 2000 the Finance Dir ectors of
Birmingham and Glasgo w local authorities , both major users of PFI, both
cast doubt on the v alue-for-money claims being made f or the scheme . Geor ge
Black, the Finance Dir ector of Glasgo w, said “I’m not sur e it is value for
money. But it’s the onl y game in to wn. It is the w ay you get money back into
your services .” The m ulti-faceted na tur e of PFIs r e-works the landsca pe of
48 Scale and scope: education is big business
pub lic sector pr ovision and is part of the r e-positioning of local go vernment
as service commissioners .
The BSF pr ogramme is a par allel sta te-funded infr astructur e development
programme w hich is intended to ‘r ebuild or r enew facilities for all secondary
pupils in England within 10–15 y ears fr om 2005–6’ (PfS website). The La bour
government ha ve committed £5 billion to the pr ogramme. Not surprisingl y
this has also elicited ea ger inter est from construction and IT companies (most
of the major companies r efer to BSF schemes on their w ebsites). In this
case local authorities m ust select a pri vate sector partner f or their r enewal
works and esta blish a Local Educa tion P artnership (LEP) (see Gr een 2005,
Cha pter 5).
The ‘delivery vehicle’ for BSF is P artnerships f or Schools (PfS), w hich is
jointl y mana ged by the DfES and P artnerships UK (PUK), w hich ar e inter -
esting in their o wn right and e xamples of ne w kinds of ‘linka ge devices’
between the pub lic and pri vate sectors and part of a r e-cultur ation of the
pub lic sector (see Bo x 3.13).
The Academies pr ogramme also in volves the b uilding or r efurbishment of
schools, again paid f or mainl y from sta te funds; sponsors contrib ute up to
£2 million, a gainst an a verage cost to b uild of £25 million to £30 million
(Hansard, par liamentary ans wer at http://www .pub lications.par liament.uk/
pa/cm200506/cmhansr d/cm060612/te xt/60612w0861.htm #06061315000629).
Again ther e are opportunities her e for construction companies and pr oject
mana gement contr actors lik e Mouchel P arkman, T ribal, Alligan Consulting,
and 3Es w hich ar e involved in the feasibility studies f or Academ y projects
(£250,000) and the pr oject mana gement (£650,000) of these ne w schools.4
ITC is another infr astructur e (as well as retail) opportunity . Research
Machines (RM) is the mar ket leader her e and b y 2002–3 had a 35 per cent
shar e of the IT educa tion mar ket; Learning T echnolo gy, Gr anada Learning
and to some e xtent the BBC ar e major competitors . (The BBC’s co verage of
the Na tional Curriculum is limited to allo w commer cial pr oviders ‘space’ to
oper ate.) The RgsL (consortia of LEAs) ar e led by commer cial partners
(connecti vity companies).
Inter active whiteboar ds (IWBs) ar e another e xample of a m ulti-faceted
policy opportunity f or b usiness from infr astructur al developments w hich
as a ne w peda gogical technolo gy has r eceived consider able encour age-
ment fr om go vernment. Ther e is the sale of boar ds, technical support con-
tr acts, tr aining (peda gogical and oper ational), installa tion, softw are sales
(EasyTeach, Boar dWorks), and w ork for fr eelance tr ainers. The whiteboar d
companies (Cle verboar d, Clevertouch, GT CO, SMAR T, Hitachi, RM Class-
boar d, Pr omethean 5), mar ket their goods to LEAs (the London Challenge
has pr ovided a t least one w hiteboar d to e very secondary school in London).
The IWB softw are bites deep into the peda gogical cor e of classroom w ork.
50 Scale and scope: education is big business
‘When we provide inter active classroom solutions w e also pr ovide the tr ain-
ing, support and ad vice tha t you need to bring out the ma gic of classroom
technolo gy’ (Promethean ne wspaper ad vert).
Programmes
Programmes is a r ather loose ca tegory used her e to r efer to na tional schemes
of various kinds w hich ar e contr acted out to pri vate pr oviders. These
can r ange fr om IT and mana gement systems to peda gogical or curricular
initia tives (see Box 3.4).
Conne xions – a na tional scheme of car eers and tr aining ad vice for
young people . VT Educa tion and Skills is the mar ket leader her e and
nationall y the lar gest pr ovider, but Pr ospects is also a major pr ovider:
“car eers guidance , Conne xions, tha t bit of the b usiness, still accounts
for a bout 50 per cent of our turno ver” (RA).
Cocentr a supports the DfES School Impr ovement Ad viser Initia tive,
working with 650 secondary schools in challenging cir cumstances .
£1.9 million.
A £1.8 million contr act to cut pa perwork for teachers has been a warded
to consultancy firm Serco and Manchester Metr opolitan Uni versity.
The scheme is aimed a t school administr ators and will be o verseen
by the Na tional College f or School Leadership .
Contracts
This a gain is a br oad ca tegory b ut r efers to speci fic, time-limited contr acts to
run services or pr ovide support f or local authorities and institutions or to
provide educa tional services outside the mainstr eam. This is a lo wer-mar gin
field of pri vate sector acti vity and indeed some of the ear ly LEA service
contr acts ar e proba bly ‘loss leaders’, tha t is they serv e as indica tions of inter -
est and demonstr ations of e ffectiveness intended to a ttr act further b usiness
rather than gener ate short-ter m pr ofit (see Cha pter 4). The outsour cing of
LEA services is pr oba bly the best-kno wn example of these (see Bo x 3.5) and,
by the end of 2005, 14 contr acts had been a warded to pri vate companies . The
possibility of such outsour cing has no w been extended to local authority
childr en’s services, although as of the end of 2005 onl y one such major
contr act had been a warded – North East Lincolnshir e (NEL), a thr ee-year
£200,000 p.a. contr act to Mouchel P arkman and Outcomes UK.
These contr acts nor mally arise fr om serious concerns a bout LEAs’ per-
for mance and ca pacity identi fied in Ofsted (see Campbell et al. 2004) and
subsequent ‘recommenda tions’ made b y consultants (PW C in man y cases) to
the DfES and negotia tions betw een the authorities and the DfES a bout
appr opria te remedial action. Ho wever, not all authorities in di fficulties ha ve
been outsour ced, and outsour cing is one of a n umber of ‘e xperiments’ b y the
DfES to encour age ‘new ways of working’ by LEAs. The e valua tion of these
‘experiments’ b y Bannock Consulting (Bannock 2003) identi fied 44 (sic):
11 interv entions leading to outsour cing; 11 interv entions of other kinds;
10 New Models funded b y the DfES; and 11 independent inno vations. Then
again some of the funded e xamples (e.g. Surr ey/VT (see pa ge 70), Black
Country P artnership , Wirral) and independent e xamples (e.g. Bedfordshir e,
a 12-year contr act with HBS – no w ter mina ted) did in volve contr acts with
52 Scale and scope: education is big business
private companies and in se veral other cases e xternal consultancy support and
advice was commissioned (Ca pita w orked with Oxf ordshir e, West Berkshir e
and Wokingham), most b ut not all fr om the pri vate sector .
In some cases (Leicester , Liverpool, R otherham and Sand well – see
Cha pter 5), the outsour cing involved contr acted or seconded interim man-
agement of v arious kinds , usuall y undertak en by serving or r etired LEA
officers (see Cha pter 4). T wo of the outsour ced authorities , Swindon and
Haringey , have subsequentl y returned to local authority contr ol; Islington is
negotia ting with its pr ovider (CEA) f or a v oluntary e xtension to the contr act.
Of two others , Hackney is outsour ced to a not-f or-pr ofit trust, and Educa tion
Leeds is run on a not-f or-pr ofit basis b y Capita. In these ter ms local authority
outsour cing has not, thus far , proved to be the sort of major mar ket opportun-
ity (or pri vatisation nightmar e) it was originall y thought to be (see Cha pter 4).
Ho wever, in some w ays the LEA contr acts ar e the tip of the ice berg as
regards outsour cing at this le vel. Lar ge numbers of local authorities ha ve
whole or partial outsour cing of their other services dri ven by the findings
of Best Value r eviews – Housing Bene fits and other financial services in
particular . Four companies domina te in the pr ovision of these services – CSL
(Sheffield, Southw ark, Ne wham, North Somerset, T aunton, etc.), Ca pita
Scale and scope: education is big business 53
(Lambeth, W estminster , etc. – see Cha pter 4), EDS (Br ent, Kingston,
Wands worth, etc.) and ITNET (Islington, Hackney , etc.). In some cases these
contr acts tak e the for m of Str ategic Partnerships (Lincolnshir e, Norf olk,
Sheffield, etc.) within w hich pri vate contr acts tak e over a wide r ange of often
very different local authority services . In J une 2001, HBS (see pa ge 72) was
awarded a 12-y ear £267 million Str ategic Service Partnership (SSP) b y
Bedfordshir e County Council co vering financial, inf or mation technolo gy,
human r esour ces and schools support services and contr acts/facilities man-
agement. Some 550 sta ff were transferr ed to HBS (see Centr e for Pub lic
Services 2005). In 2005 the County ter mina ted the contr act; ‘The Council
considers and is so ad vised tha t HBS w as in br each of a n umber of its
obligations under the Services Agr eement’ (http://www .pub lictechnolo gy.net/
modules .php?op=modload&name=Ne ws&file=article&sid=3646 ). The cost
of the ter mina tion to the Council w as £6.75 million.
The point her e again is the scale , comple xity, diversity and in some r espects
invisibility of pri vate sector in volvements. Further mor e, the majority of the
private sector in volvements with local authorities and LEAs did not stem
from interv entions , although they ma y have been encour aged in various w ays
or made necessary b y Best Value and CP A reviews.6
And a t the heart of Best V alue, this time ar ound, is going to be contest-
ability. So, why is this, you kno w, this service might be deli vering – why do
you think it’s the best service and w hy do you think it’s the most e fficient
way of delivering it? Ho w have you tested it? W hat alterna tives have you
look ed at? And can w e see your e vidence, please? So ther e’s going to be
an incr easing focus ar ound tha t.
(BH, Mouchel P arkman)
Ho wever, in man y examples the initia tion of pri vate sector in volvement came
from the authorities themselv es. These examples a t least suggest tha t ther e is
no coor dina ted policy push to wards wholesale LEA outsour cing although
ther e is ‘policy talk’ b y Prime Minister Blair and others (see Cha pter 2)
about mo ving local authorities to become commissioners r ather than service
deliverers and an emphasis on a gr eater r ole for the pri vate and v oluntary
sectors as pr oviders. Ho wever, the Bannock (2003: 34) e valua tion of ‘ne w
ways of working’ notes a lack of incenti ves for headteachers and LEA
officers to pr ocur e services from the pri vate sector and a lack of skills and
capacity to do so and r ecommend ‘ad ditional in vestment in br okerage or
other a gencies to support pur chasers and pr ocur ers’. The Bannock e valu-
ation also notes ‘policy de velopments tha t might ha ve blurr ed the messa ge
tha t pri vate sector pr oviders ha ve a bigger part to pla y’ (p. 33). Nonetheless ,
the pri vate sector is making inr oads and their ‘mar ket shar e’ of services is
growing and some local authorities ar e moving to wards the model of w hat is
called ‘virtual authorities’. P erha ps the messa ge here is tha t the ‘contr act
mar ket’ should be neither o ver-estima ted nor under-estima ted. Ther e is a
54 Scale and scope: education is big business
mor e detailed and close-up account of some of this w ork in the f ollowing
chapter.
The second le vel of this ‘contr acts mar ket’, the outsour cing of schools , is
much less de veloped. Onl y thr ee secondary schools , all in Surr ey, ar e fully
outsour ced, two run b y 3Es (F rencha y and King’s College) and one
(Abbeylands) b y Nor d Anglia. Another primary school in T ower Hamlets ,
Rams Episcopal, w as mana ged for a short time b y CfBT. This level of out-
sour cing is much mor e developed in the US b ut still small-scale , with Edison
as mar ket leader . In 2003 Edison r an one-quarter of the 417 contr acted-out
schools in the US , teaching 132,000 students in 20 sta tes – a tin y proportion
of US schools . The major inhibitors in ter ms of further de velopments in the
UK ar e a lack of inter est on the part of LEAs and on the part of pr oviders,
most of w hom see little opportunity f or efficiency savings and pr ofit in
running single schools . Neil McIntosh of CfBT e xplained:
essentiall y being the mana gers of a gr oup of schools is w hat we aspir e to.
And I’v e been saying, since, well, since the beginning of the La bour
government tha t the model f or us e xists in the independent sector , which
is the Gir ls’ Public Day School T rust, w hich has 25, 30 schools . I’m not
saying tha t everything in tha t model w e would mirr or and w e are cer-
tainl y not inter ested in it being intellectuall y or sociall y exclusive, come to
tha t, b ut in ter ms of a mana gerial model it’s inter esting.
We do a lot of Eur opean Social Fund pr ojects, some quite e xciting ones .
In Southw ark we’re running w hat we call Elephant Angels , which is a
comm unity support pr oject, where our sta ff act as ad visers, supporting,
56 Scale and scope: education is big business
Services
This is the r etail end of the educa tion services b usiness. Tha t is the sale of
single services or packa ges of services to indi vidual schools or LEAs r anging
from ‘har d’ office, financial and facilities services to ‘soft’ school impr ove-
ment and CPD w ork and w hat Tribal call ‘turnar ound services’ aimed a t
supporting w eak or ‘failing’ institutions . Services companies will also help
schools pr epar e themselv es for Ofsted inspections and mentor and tr ain senior
sta ff in the mana gement r oles (see Cha pter 6). Various ‘human r esour ces’
services also fit her e, like interim mana gement and teacher suppl y agencies
(see Box 3.7) (by 2002 the teacher suppl y business was worth £600 million
per ann um (see Hutchings 2006).
A significant part of this ‘soft’ w ork responds to go vernment policy changes
and initia tives in relation to curriculum r equir ements and r elated de velop-
ments. The pri vate sector fills the ga p left b y the r eduction in funding of local
educa tion authorities to interpr et and media te policy for schools . Peter
Dunne described HBS’s educa tion b usiness as “95 per cent curricular and
national a genda acti vities, standar ds funds , 5 per cent back o ffice . . . we’re
Scale and scope: education is big business 57
directed primaril y at school impr ovement and ena bling change in schools”.
Back o ffice work also includes such things as the suppl y and tr aining of
labor atory technicians and school gr ound maintenance . Perfor mance
mana gement systems , like benchmar king, ar e a part of this mar ket. The ESI
companies enga ge with the services mar ket in di fferent ways. HBS does a
consider able amount of b usiness in this ar ea, whereas Bob Ho gg of Mouchel
Parkman described this as “bits of w ork we don’t go near . . . nothing in it f or
us 23k customers”. Some of the softer w ork, ‘the mana gement of change’,
is also a niche mar ket for smaller companies – lik e Eduno va, Edison and
Cocentr a.
New technolo gy adoption pr ovides opportunities in w hich the pri vate sec-
tor has e xpertise and e xperience w hich has ne ver existed to an y great extent in
the pub lic sector, although some of the softw are development companies
which no w sell to schools (lik e Intuiti ve Media and SEMER C and Inclusi ve
Technolo gy) and ar eas of acti vity like SEN softw are did origina te from
pub lic sector services or inno vations – “a lot of these companies ha ve been
specifically tar geting teachers f or their emplo yees” (CA).
Let’s mo ve on no w to some other facets of the ESI w hich ar e related in
different ways to the main ar eas of the edu-b usiness.
Secondary markets
Tribal tr ains teachers and lectur ers, inspects schools , provides libr ary
services, holds Academ y project mana gement contr acts, sells school
impr ovement thr ough its Pupils Champions scheme (part of w hich is
funded b y the DfES thr ough the London Challenge), held the interv en-
tion contr act to run Swindon LEA, runs benchmar king schemes f or
FE colleges , works with 80 per cent of all secondary schools and 70 per
cent of all LEAs in England (ma terials fr om compan y website and
intervie w).
Tribal is one of the five national inspection companies r ecog-
nised b y the DfES with a curr ent contr act worth £50 million o ver five
years.
“So we have a pr operty di vision, which is no w I think the thir d-lar gest
architectur e practice in Britain, and tha t’s specialising in schools ,
Scale and scope: education is big business 59
FE colleges and hospitals . We’ve got a comm unica tions di vision, a
technolo gy division, a consultancy di vision” (JS).
In a fe w cases, like Tribal, contr acts for educa tional services ha ve led on to
work with the health service and housing associa tions via acquisitions .
This pr ocess of consolida tion seems lik ely to contin ue.
I still get phone calls on a v ery regular basis , usuall y from people acting
on behalf of major companies , because I suppose w e’re proba bly one of
the lar gest of the ‘independents’ still out ther e. But w e’re rather stoutl y
independent, and w e see our futur e as being independent and de veloping
tha t way. And tha t’s strongly the view of my boar d.
(RA, Pr ospects)
Selling contracts
A secondary mar ket of a di fferent kind has gr own up ar ound the PFI, tha t is
the selling on of contr acts b y builders or FM companies once pr ojects ar e
completed. Construction contr actors use this r oute once their acti ve role is
complete to gener ate funds f or further PFI w ork. Sometimes a w hole port-
folio of PFI in vestments come up f or sale. Buyers include banks and in vest-
ment funds tha t specialise in the long da tes and pr edicta ble natur e of PFI
income (see Bo x 3.11).
What these e xamples point up is both the a ttr actions of PFI as a sour ce of
investment and pr ofit and a gain the interna tionalising of UK pub lic service
62 Scale and scope: education is big business
In J uly 2003 John Laing with the Commonw ealth Bank of A ustr alia
bought Carillions PFI r oad scheme shar es.
(http://www .laing.com/460_535.htm )
assets. Mor e and mor e of the UK pub lic service infrastructur e is built, o wned
or run b y overseas companies .
And I think the pr oblem was you had the b lind leading the b lind. You
had Price waterhouse , or w hoever was doing tha t side of it, negotia ting
and ad vising, and they didn’t understand educa tion b udgets and b udget
streams. You had, v ery often, councils w ho were having financial di fficul-
ties an yway, so they w eren’t very clear on it. And then y ou had people on
the pri vate sector side w ho didn’t understand the educa tion b udget.
This kind of w ork not onl y produces signi ficant income str eams b ut also
furthers the w ork of r endering educa tion into a commodity f or m and
re-articula tes educa tional pr ocesses within the discourse of commodities .
The Gershon R eview of the Ci vil Service (http://www .hm-tr easury.gov.uk/ )
has led to further use of pri vate consultants within go vernment, to r eplace
per manent ci vil servants , as a w ay of reducing costs and ‘incr easing flexibility’:
Gr een (2005: 70) quotes a school go vernor in volved in a PFI scheme sa ying
“All the fees spent on the pr ocess would ha ve built a primary school.”
Adjunct markets
Alongside the dir ect pri vatisation(s) of pub lic sector services ther e is a whole
variety of mor e subtle, indir ect and intima te pri vatisations in volving educa -
tion and educa tional services as part of w hat Clar ke (2004: 122) calls ‘doub le
privatizations’, tha t is shifts fr om the pub lic to pri vate sector and fr om the
pub lic to pri vate realm. In a w hole variety of di fferent ways childr en and
childhood ar e now ‘satur ated b y the mar ket’ (Ball 2004). As Baudrillar d
(1998) puts it, ‘consumption is la ying hold of the w hole of life’. R esearch by
advertising a gency WAA found tha t the a verage family spends £1,500 per
child betw een the a ges of 6 months and 8 y ears on ad ditional classes and
activities (outside school hours). Most acti vities ar e given up within five weeks
(Loving and Family Life – London’s Child Magazine, Autumn 2004, p . 9).
The UK’s 4 leading educa tional softw are companies ar e all owned b y
global m ultina tionals: TL C (for merly the Learning Compan y) – US to y
compan y Ma ttel, and Eur opr ess – US to y compan y Hasbr o. Ha vas is
owned b y the F rench-based media corpor ation V ivendi, and the 4th is
Disney.
(Buckingham and Scanlon 2005)
At the moment w e’re doing some w ork in Hong K ong. Thr ough
our Ofsted inspection compan y, we’re doing some ad visory work in
Macedonia, looking a t the esta blishment of an inspection r egime ther e.
So they’r e picking up on the idea of Ofsted-type inspections of their
schools. We’ve got a n umber of smaller colla bor ative projects where we
collabor ate with y outh services in Finland. W e’re particular ly inter ested
in the medium ter m and our people w ho ar e doing the w ork in Hong
Kong ar e also, I believe, starting to do some w ork in mainland China
now. So tha t’s clearly a big potential mar ket for educa tion, as is the w hole
of Eastern Eur ope. So I think tha t pr oba bly the ne xt decade will see us
looking a lot mor e externall y as well as developing in the UK.
(RA, Pr ospects)
The Alok ozay Gr oup describes itself as a ‘leader in the cigar ette industry’
and is the sole distrib utor f or cigar ettes made b y the K orea Tobacco and
Ginseng Corp in Africa, Asia, Eastern Eur ope and the Mid dle East . . .
Hugh MacPherson, chief oper ating o fficer of Gems , said the pr oject was
“a small step to wards achie ving a brighter futur e for the childr en of
Afghanistan”.
(Michael Sha w, TES, 20 August 2004)
The UK pr ovides a model and a la bor atory f or educa tional inno vations,
and policy is being e xported. Incr easingly the work of interna tional policy
tr ansfer is done b y the pri vate sector (see Crump and See 2005 on Ser co in
Austr alia).
These ar e all indica tions of the r e-scaling of educa tion policy and the r elative
decline in signi ficance of the na tion sta te as the dominant scale of policy-
making (as w as ever the case f or de veloping countries). Ov erall structur al
coher ence in educa tion policy ma y no longer be automa tically secured by
Western sta tes – the Bolo gna Declar ation and its e ffects in ter ms of higher
educa tion is another kind of e xample, and GA TS ma y bring further scalar
changes (see Rik owski 2001).
At this point some readers may want to skip to the concluding section – the
remainder of the chapter introduces in more detail the major companies and
other organisations that participate in the ESI.
Scale and scope: education is big business 69
The players
The ESI can also be vie wed via a typolo gy of the companies and other main
players involved. The constructors ar e not included her e (see Cha pter 7) and
neither ar e the banks , pri vate equity funds and IT C pr oviders. Rather I con-
centr ate on those companies and other or ganisa tions w hose acti vities ar e
focused on the dir ect (har d and soft) educa tion services sector . I want to use
the typolo gy in a n umber of w ays: to r eiterate the di versity of w hat we might
call pri vate; to r eiterate the b lurring of the pub lic/private boundary – indeed
such a boundary is not so m uch b lurr ed as ob literated; to indica te some
values di fferences betw een companies; and to highlight di fferences in history ,
scope and scale among the companies and other pla yers. The typolo gy is
pur ely heuristic and not particular ly robust and the fact each ca tegory con-
tains h ybrids and mer gers, acquisitions and joint v entur es means tha t some
companies ha ve in effect mo ved betw een categories. It looks lik e this:
Niche start-ups
Primiti ve capitalists
Partnerships
Services now account f or 80 per cent of VT’s b usiness. VTES runs mod-
ern a ppr enticeship pr ogrammes, Conne xions car eers services (of which
nationall y it is the lar gest pr ovider), school inspections , and DfES and
LA contr acts. “By 2008, the compan y has an ambition to doub le the size
of its educa tion b usiness as part of an o verall expansion plan f or the
group” (DM). In 2004 VTES launched a joint b usiness ventur e/Strategic
Partnership with Surr ey CC – VT4S; 4S w as set up in 2000 as an in-house
oper ation, and Surr ey CC will r etain a 19.9 per cent holding. Also in
2004 VTES secur ed £25 million e xtensions to their v ocational tr aining
contr acts and had six of eight car eers guidance contr acts r enewed (VTES
website).
• Amey has a similar tr ajectory to J arvis, and has faced similar tr avails.
Amey evolved from a ggregate pr oduction and r oad b uilding and “r eal-
ised tha t ther e was mor e value in the support, in mana ging contr acts
than deli vering them, so got into the mana ged services, support services ,
procur ement contr acts and so on” (DM). Amey is inter esting her e as
a sponsor of an ear ly, and ‘failing’, Academ y, the Unity Academ y,
Mid dlesbrough ( http://www.ofsted.go v.uk/r eports/manr eports/2661.pdf ).
Eduno va (see pa ge 75) has worked with Unity , and I will r eturn to Unity
in Cha pter 6. Amey is also a partner with Nor d Anglia in EduAction,
which holds the contr act to deli ver 28 of the 47 W altham F orest LEA
service functions and shar e 14 others . EduAction w as awarded the £200
million Waltham F orest Council contr act in September 2001 with a
manda te to deli ver major impr ovements in educa tional standar ds over
a period of five years ( http://eduaction.com/inde x.cfm?fuseAction=
SM.na v&UUID=A490390D–1143–37A1–3602F34B9EE4B9C6 ).
• Mouchel Parkman is the pr oduct of the mer ger of an engineering firm and
educa tion consultants (Mouchel Consulting) in 2003 and no w employs
4,250 people . Its cor e mar ket sectors ar e property , rail, water and e xpand-
ing involvements in gas , waste, educa tion and housing. The leaders of
the educa tion section ar e John T urner , ex-Senior Educa tion Ad viser
at the DfES (Dir ector of Educa tional Consultancy), and Bob Ho gg,
ex-Executive Dir ector of LifeLong Learning and Leisur e of Southampton
City Council (Dir ector of Learning Services). Mouchel sells school
impr ovement str ategies, does SEN w ork, o ffers infr astructur e support
Scale and scope: education is big business 71
to LAs , tr aining and de velopment, and support and ad vice for PPPs
and PFIs and is the la test compan y to win a contr act to run LEA ser-
vices (NE Lincolnshir e), and they ar e project mana gers for a n umber
of Academies . The gr oup turno ver for 2003–4 was £217 million, up
22 per cent fr om the pr evious year; pre-tax pr ofits were up 43 per cent fr om
£13.5 million to £19.4 million (compan y website and ann ual r eports , and
intervie w with BH).
• Prospects Services was founded in 1995 and in 2003–4 had a turno ver of
£44.5 million. It has 1,200 sta ff and consultants (intervie w RA). A
limited compan y, Prospects is a ‘not-f or-distrib uta ble profit’ compan y
and r e-invests its pr ofits in the comm unities it serv es. It is a major
Conne xions pr ovider and does y outh service w ork and Ofsted inspec-
tions, comm unity r egeneration, consultancy and school impr ovement.
Chief Ex ecutive Ray Auvray is an ex-senior LEA o fficer who headed a
‘spun-o ff’ service prior to the cr eation of Pr ospects.
• CEA was esta blished in 1987 b y Der ek Foreman, e x-Deputy Dir ector of
the ILEA, and Brian Smith, e x-Deputy Dir ector of Cambridgeshir e
LEA. It deals in LEA consultancy and outsour cing and curr ently runs
contr acts in Islington, Southw ark and the Scill y Isles. It conducts Ofsted
inspections and does ICT tr aining, o ffers interim mana gement and
PPP support and administers the T eacher P ay Refor m pr ogramme,
and pr oject-mana ges several Academies . It has an ann ual turno ver of
around £50 million. In 2000 CEA enter ed into a joint v entur e with Mott
MacDonald (turno ver 2003–4 of £342 million and pr ofit of £7.8 million),
an interna tional engineering pr oject mana gement consultancy w orking
in tr ansport, pr operty , health car e, comm unica tions, energy, leisure and
utilities (compan y ann ual r eport).
• CfBT is a not-f or pr ofit compan y established in 1965, and emplo ys
around 1,000 sta ff. It ‘uses commer cial disciplines to encour age efficiency
and gener ate surpluses’ (CfBT w ebsite). It oper ates in the UK and
abroad, with w ork in Africa and the F ar and Mid dle East mainl y funded
by the British go vernment, the EU and the W orld Bank. CfBT runs the
Teaching Agency and car eers services (e.g. Thames , West London and
74 Scale and scope: education is big business
Bedford). It w as awarded the contr act to mana ge the na tional r oll-out of
the Conne xions Service Accr edited T raining Pr ogramme. It also has
responsibility f or mana ging key elements of the F ast Track Teaching
programme and held the first contr act for mana gement of the Na tional
Strategies. It o wns a pri vate school and a small n umber of pri vate nurser-
ies, runs after-school clubs and o ffers school impr ovement services. It
mana ged R ams Episcopal primary school in Hackney f or a short time .
Niche start-ups
These ar e smaller companies with turno vers of £1 million to £5 million.
Five companies ar e profiled her e: Cocentr a, Eduno va, Ca pital, Edison UK
and Alligan b ut ther e are others w hich could ha ve been included. Man y
similar-siz ed companies ha ve been ‘swallowed up’ b y the lar ger companies .
Cocentr a has a twin str ategy for esta blishing itself in the ESI:
We’ve got tw o lines to our str ategy. One is what we call demand side ,
which is where ther e will be tenders tha t come out and w e will con-
tinue to tender lik e everybod y else does. And w e won the na tional
SIA contr act . . . but ther e is the other side of our b usiness tha t we’ve
deliber ately built, pr oacti vely, which is our suppl y side, which is
broadl y the pr oducts and services tha t we sell, most of tha t will be in
to schools; some of it will be via the LEA mar ket. But w e see, in fact,
the o verarching philosoph y comes thr ough in our br and v alues . . . I
believe tha t the onl y way of unlocking this mar ket over the longer
ter m is to ha ve a reputa tion tha t is better than an ybod y else’s by a
huge mar gin [see Cha pter 6].
Scale and scope: education is big business 75
At the time of intervie wing the b usiness had 12 sta ff, with an ambition to
increase tha t to 100 and achie ve a turno ver of £5 million to £10 million.
• EduNova is a small independent pr ovider headed b y Gr aham W alker,
whose backgr ound is in accountancy with Accentur e and Ca p Gemini,
with 12 full-time sta ff. The b usiness focuses on school tr ansfor mation
and learning: “this is w hat we call the Eduno va wheel, which is, if you’re
trying to bring a bout e ffective learning f or the indi vidual student then
we believe you ha ve to mana ge at least these five key things” (GW).
The a ppr oach of the compan y is to work collabor atively with schools or
groups of schools:
If you’re moving into a w orld of colla bor ative working acr oss
schools and colla bor ation with other learning comm unities outside
the school ther e’s a whole b usiness about ho w do you de velop ne w
partnerships and mak e them w ork and mak e them integr ate with the
way your school is oper ating.
The principal opportunity w as a pub lic policy one . The Training and
Enterprise Councils w ere being abolished and being r eplaced b y the
Learning and Skills Councils , and v arious services just fell betw een
the cr acks. A number of or ganisa tions tha t were consumed b y this
change didn’t r eally understand the kind of pr ocesses tha t were at
play here. And I could see , looking a t ho w things w ere organised on
the gr ound, tha t a n umber of services w ere just disa ppearing, and
tha t ther e was an opportunity f or someone to cr eate an or ganisa tion
tha t could suppl y those services .
(VF)
I see our r ole as we’re transla tors and w e do tak e seriousl y this listen-
ing to the sponsor . Some ar e infor med, in the sense of UL T have
been running schools f or – or their par ent compan y – for man y years,
and others ar e not. But e ven where they’re not they still kno w what
they want to achie ve. And it’s our job to articula te it for them, back
to them, in a w ay tha t people w ould understand within the educa tion
sector.
(GM, Alligan)
Scale and scope: education is big business 77
Primitive capitalists
Included her e are Nor d Anglia, Co gnita, So vereign Ca pital and GEMS , and
they ha ve featur ed several times alr eady in the account a bove. These com-
panies ar e distinguished her e for thr ee reasons. Firstl y, they oper ate acr oss the
pub lic/private divide, and in the pri vate sector they ‘sell’ dir ectly to the pub lic
(or to LAs) thr ough o wnership of pri vate schools , car e homes and n urseries.
Second, they ar e buyers and sellers of these dir ect educa tion b usinesses.
Thir d, they compete with as w ell as sell services to the pub lic sector.
• Nord Anglia is a stock mar ket listed compan y founded in 1972 b y Kevin
McNean y to teach English as a f oreign langua ge. The compan y moved
into f or-pr ofit schools in the UK in the 1980s , and la tter ly into pri vate
day-care nurseries. It runs British Interna tional Schools in se veral coun-
tries, but K evin McNean y reported in an intervie w in 2003 tha t “the
largest pr oportion of r evenue comes fr om the outsour cing business”. In
2004 it acquir ed Lea pfrog and Jigsa w nursery gr oups to become UK
mar ket leader with 101 n urseries and 10,262 places . In 2004 it sold ten of
its pri vate schools to GEMS f or £11.9 million. T urno ver in 2003–4 was
£45.5 million, up 10.4 per cent on the pr evious year, with a pr ofit of
£1 million, do wn from £2.1 million in 2003, substantiall y as a r esult of a
loss of £536,000 b y EduAction, a joint v entur e with Amey to run parts
of Waltham F orest LEA ( http://www .unison.or g.uk/acr oba t/B1512.pdf ).
Nor d Anglia also mana ges Abbeylands Compr ehensive in Surr ey. In
2005 a do wnturn in the n ursery b usiness led to the issuing of a pr ofits
warning, and shar es fell 3p to 197p . In 2004 K evin McNean y stepped
down as chief e xecutive and sold 2 million of his compan y shar es, netting
£4.3 million.
• GEMS is headed b y Sunn y Varkey, a Dubai-based entr epreneur. It runs
private schools in se veral countries and, as noted on pa ge 60, bought
a UK gr oup of pri vate schools fr om Nor d Anglia in 2004 with the
intention of b uilding up a chain of 200 ‘econom y class’ schools b y “cut-
ting personnel costs” and incr easing class siz es (Varkey – AMEinf o fn,
11 January 2005). GEMS also runs pri vate health car e facilities in
the Mid dle East. In 2005 GEMS bought educa tion services compan y
3Es and made an o ffer to sponsor tw o Academies in Milton K eynes,
later withdr awn (http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/educa tion/4443512.stm ). The
Business (6/7 Mar ch 2005) reported tha t ‘Blair is considering issuing a
contr act to GEMS to b uild and run schools’ in the sta te sector .
• Cognita was founded in 2004 and is back ed by £500 million equity fund
Englefield Ca pital LLP . It bought 17 pri vate schools fr om Asquith
Court, w hich is the UK’s second-lar gest pri vate nursery pr ovider ( http://
www.catalystcf.co.uk/pr essreleases/Aquimonth.pdf ). Other schools ha ve
since been ad ded to the Co gnita portf olio (making 22 b y mid-2006). The
compan y is chair ed by ex-Chief Inspector of Schools Chris W oodhead.
78 Scale and scope: education is big business
In Ma y 2005 Cognita announced a discount scheme to a ttr act par ents
from the sta te sector, which could sa ve par ents up to £25,000 o ver the
educa tion car eer of one child ( TES, 20 Ma y 2005, p. 16).
• Sovereign Capital is a UK ‘lo wer mid-mar ket’ equity firm which has
made se veral acquisitions in pri vate educa tion and social car e (e.g.
Herts Car e Gr oup and Or char d End) since 2000 (see pa ge 61) but has a
diverse portf olio acr oss support services , leisure, health car e, a chain
of funer al homes , and w aste/en vironmental services . Sovereign’s acquisi-
tions illustr ate again the w ay in which educa tion services ar e viewed as
profitable assets and the integr ation of these into sets of di verse services
holdings .
On A pril 1st, LSD A is going to split into tw o or ganisa tions. One is the
Quality Impr ovement Agency [QIA], w hich will have a str ategic commis-
sioning r ole for quality impr ovement acr oss the post-16 sector . The other
organisa tion will be the Learning Skills Netw ork [LSN], which will be a
80 Scale and scope: education is big business
delivery or ganisa tion pur ely. And the QIA will go to Co ventry f or its
headquarters; and the r ole of the Standar ds Unit will become , I think,
slightly downsized and distanced. No w, why tha t is inter esting is tha t,
although a t the moment y ou could sa y tha t CEL and Ha y, and LSD A to
some extent, ar e direct competitors in the sense tha t they could all bid
potentiall y for the same gr ant funding, f or the same pr ojects, after A pril
tha t competition will become e ven mor e acute, because LSN will be on
its own and it’ll ha ve to gain the totality of its income fr om successfull y
bidding for pr ojects and acti vities.
(DS)
No w we came acr oss this first, bef ore these UK mar kets were developed
at all and w e found ourselv es in the ear ly 90s competing with the British
Council, and the British Council w as an e xtremely dishonest competitor ,
in those da ys . . . and I r ecall ther e were thr ee bidders typicall y for OD A
contr acts, CEC , which is the o verseas bit of CEA, and ourselv es, and
sometimes w e’re talking a bout countries w here the British Council r epre-
senta tive was actuall y an embassy o fficial, where they would try and get
the ambassador or high commissioner to pitch in on their behalf , where
they would use their o verheads w hich were taxpa yer-funded o verheads ,
to steal a mar ch on independent or ganisa tions.
(NM, CfBT)
Scale and scope: education is big business 81
These di verse relationships and acti vities and the v arious h ybridities
involved do discursi ve work within the pub lic sector in a v ariety of w ays,
de-sta bilising and shifting identities and purposes and r equiring the de vel-
opment of ne w kinds of skills and ca pabilities and r oles, and ma teriall y they
create new incenti ves and demands .
Conclusion
This then is a schema tic cross-sectional account of the educa tion services
industry in the UK. Some initial gener alisations can be a ttempted on the
basis of this , but mor e detailed anal ytical work is done on the v arious sectors
identi fied her e in the cha pters tha t follow. ‘Stories’ signalled her e will be filled
out la ter. What we see here is a number of v ery different pri vatisations in volv-
ing very different kinds of r elationships with the pub lic sector. Very much a t
the centr e of all this ther e is ‘the omnipr esence of the sta te’ (Leys 2001: 107)
and the w ork of ‘smart go vernment’ (Br own et al. 2001: 241): the sta te as a
mar ket-mak er, as initia tor of opportunities , as r e-modeller and moderniser .
This is not the end of the sta te or of sta te educa tion b ut the beginnings , real
and symbolic, of the emer gence of a di fferent kind of sta te and sta te educa -
tion and a di fferent kind of r elation betw een educa tion and the sta te (this is
an issue I r eturn to in Cha pter 5). Her e privatisation is a policy tool in a
number of w ays, with a v ariety of ends and purposes , not a gi ving up of
capacity to mana ge social pr oblems and r espond to social needs b ut part of
an ensemb le for inno vations, recalibr ations and ne w relationships and social
partnerships . Ther e is a dr ama tic re-mar king of institutional and discursi ve
boundaries . Ther e is both a ‘r e-scaling’ and a ‘desta talisa tion’ of pub lic ser-
vices and a r e-alloca tion of tasks acr oss the pub lic/private divide (Jessop
2002: 199). Indeed the na tion sta te is no longer the a ppr opria te scale for
conceptualising and r esearching educa tion policy or the deli very of na tional
educa tional services – educa tion is a global b usiness. These de velopments
reconstitute pub lic service delivery and the o wnership of pub lic sector assets
Scale and scope: education is big business 83
as separ ate from the r ole of the sta te as commissioner , contr actor , tar get
setter and perf or mance monitor (see W hit field 2001) and r e-work new aspects
of the pub lic sector as commodities , as legitima te objects of pr ofit-making,
and r ecognise pr ofit as a major incenti ve for impr oving pub lic service
efficiency.
The entr epreneurial discourse is also dissemina ted thr ough pub lic sector
organisa tions in the pr ocess of modernisa tion and pri vatisation. As se veral
writers ha ve noted, ‘partnerships’ pla y an important part in this dissemin-
ation. Pub lic sector bodies ar e drawn into financial r elationships with the
private sector b ut also r equir ed to act within the fr amework of mar ket pr oxies
or m ust maintain their e xistence from earnings in the educa tion mar ket.
It is important not to o ver-sta te the degr ee of or der and thought w hich
goes into mar ket-making. Ther e are man y contr adictions within and betw een
policies, and ga ps betw een rhetoric and pr actice. Within the enthusiasm f or
privatisation ther e are also man y inconsistencies and e xperiments – ‘chance
discourse , sear ch pr ocesses, policy tr ansfers and social struggles’ (J essop
2002: 135). Much of w hat we see here is pragmatic solutions to economic
problems and funding pr oblems which dr aw upon a coincidence of inter ests
but which ar e foster ed and inf or med b y heavy lobbying and other f or ms of
influence. Ne w and esta blished pri vate pla yers ar e eager to push the boundar-
ies of commodi fication further f orward – the r esour cefulness of ca pital (Leys
2001: 91)! These solutions and in fluences pla y their part in the r e-working of
educa tion as a legitima te object of pr ofit and into a f or m which is contr act-
able and salea ble as local authorities ‘learn’ to ‘packa ge work appr opria te
to the mar ket’ (http://www .dft.go v.uk/stellent/gr oups/dft_contr ol/documents/
contentserv ertempla te/dft_inde x.hcst?n=16367&l=4 ). Clear ly business is
enthusiastic a bout opportunities arising fr om and within policies b ut is not
equall y enthusiastic a bout e very aspect of r efor m. The opportunities f or
profit, the pr edicta bilities and risks di ffer. But incr easingly the pri vate sector
is inside policy and inside the sta te bringing its inter ests and its discourse to
bear and earning money fr om consultancies w hich r ecommend a gr eater r ole
for the pri vate sector in the deli very of pub lic services – a closed cir cle of the
obviousness within policy . Ther e is also consider able movement of personnel
between the sta te and pri vate sector w hich facilita tes the flow of discourse as
well as involving in some cases ‘b uying insider kno wledge’, as Allyson P ollack
(2004) puts it. This is another dimension of the b lurring of pub lic/private
boundaries and identities . It is a side-stepping of esta blished pr ocedur es
and methods , in particular local authority democr acy and ci vil service bur-
eaucr acy and their r eplacement with a di fferent set of r elationships and a
different ethos , and a t the same time this is a means of achie ving a r efor m of
local authorities and a r econfiguration of their r oles in and r elationships to
service delivery. This is what Leys (2001: 63) calls the ‘inter connectedness of
change’.
A further inter-connected item on the a genda of educa tional modernisa -
tion is a r e-working of la bour r elations and conditions of emplo yment, and a
84 Scale and scope: education is big business
side-lining or constr aining of the r ole of tr ade unions – a pr ocess of flexibili-
sation and the intr oduction of ne w post-F ordist pr oduction nor ms. In a mor e
general sense this constitutes part of a br eak-up of ‘collecti vist systems’ and
the flexibilisation of the sta te, a mo ve away from structur es and b ureaucr acies
to contr acts and mor e malleable and tempor ary r elationships dri ven by per-
for mance and output monitoring and benchmar king, and to wards greater
diversity and a ‘mix ed econom y of welfare’.
The main ar eas of the mar ket within sta te educa tion ar e mar kedly regulated
but ther e are a consider able number of ‘ethical slippa ges’ and pri vate sector
inefficacies. Mor e and mor e areas of educa tion, pub lic and pri vate, ar e now
subject to b usiness pr actices and financial lo gics, de-socialised and bought
and sold as assets and made part of in vestment portf olios or generic services
empir es. The possibilities of pri vatisation contin ually change and e xpand,
and the r atcheting up of policy o ver time opens up mor e state educa tion
services for pr ofit.
4 Economics and actors
The social r elations of the ESI
In this cha pter I look inside the ESI b y focusing on the car eers and per-
spectives of a gr oup of k ey players, senior industry e xecutives – the ne w
entr epreneurs. The account starts b y looking a t the mo vement of these actors
from the pub lic to the pri vate sector and the emer gence of an ESI mar ket.
This leads on to consider ation of v alues and the distinction, if ther e is one,
between pub lic and pri vate sector v alues in the ESI. I tak e very seriousl y the
failur es of the pub lic sector and the contrib utions of the pri vate sector to
social justice and ar gue for the need to a void ethical simplicities . All of
these illustr ate blurrings of di fferent kinds betw een the pub lic and pri vate
sectors. The cha pter concludes b y looking a t the r elationships of these k ey
actors to and in policy , as part of a ‘policy cr eation comm unity’, and the
comple xities involved. P art of this participa tion in policy in volves the sear ch
for ne w mar ket opportunities within pub lic sector pr ovision.
Market relations
Mar kets ar e not just a bout the economics of pr ofit and loss; they ar e
also a bout social r elations, about ‘socia bility, appr oval, sta tus and po wer’
(Gr ano vetter 1985: 506). They w ork in part b y virtue of trust and shar ed
values – they ar e embed ded in social institutions and fr amed b y economic
policy. As John K ay explains: ‘The comple x institutions of the mar ket econ-
omy developed lar gely without centr al dir ection and ar e constantl y evolving.
Go vernment is an a gent in tha t evolution, not a b ystander , but go vernment
cannot contr ol the pr ocess’ (2004: 240).
Ho wever, the ESI is less embed ded than man y mar kets and mor e contr olled
than most. It w as to a gr eat extent cr eated and is sustained b y deliber ation
and planning b y the sta te – suppl y and demand ha ve been encour aged
and facilita ted b y various policy mo ves and the e fforts of particular policy
actors . On the other hand, the design and gr owth of the ES mar ket is also
the outcome of the ongoing e fforts of ‘sellers’ in and ar ound v arious conte xts
of policy to mak e their case and in fluence policy in their inter ests. The actors
within this mar ket, buyers and sellers , constitute a social netw ork of policy
and economic acti vity (see Figur es 5.1 and 5.2), although as w e have seen
86 Economics and actors
this simple binary of mar ket relations is totall y inadequa te as a w ay of
thinking a bout the structur e of the ESI. Ther e is an interpla y of and flows
between the v arious sides of the mar ket – blurrings and boundary r econstitu-
tions – and interpersonal histories and r elationships ar e important to ho w
the mar ket works and ho w it is evolving. Such histories and r elationships
play their part inside the comple x anon ymity of the sta te in most ar enas
of economic policy b ut for various r easons they ar e relatively mor e visible
in relation to the ESI, and m y intervie ws thr ow further light on aspects
of them.
This cha pter looks a t the car eers of one v ery specific group of actors within
the ESI, ‘ne w entr epreneurs’, most of w hom spent long periods in b ut ha ve
moved from the pub lic sector, at their entry into the industry , at their moti v-
ations and v alues, and a t their actions in r elation to one another and to the
state. They ar e mostl y men, they ar e white and they mo ved from senior posi-
tions within the pub lic sector. Their v alues r eflect their positioning within the
pub lic sector. I am aiming f or a r elatively ‘thick’ account of these actors in
ter ms of their di verse and comple x moti vations, rather than carica tur e them
as rapacious ca pitalists . In a sense they inha bit ne w and virtuous subject
positions pr oduced within the discourses of pub lic sector r efor m and go v-
ernmentality b ut they ar e also indi viduall y very acti ve in seizing or f orging
new career opportunities . I focus speci fically here on the contr act and services
sectors of the industry and mainl y a group of companies tha t ar e ‘in the
business of educa tion’ r ather than in the b usiness of ‘selling services into the
educa tion sector’ as one r espondent put it. F or simplicity her e I refer to them
as educa tion b usinesses. I look, thr ough the perspecti ves of these pla yers, at
the risks , difficulties and opportunities of the ESI and the w ay in which
business follows policy and some of the particular w ays of working and
buyer/seller r elations tha t pertain.
Baker [Conserv ative Secretary of Sta te for Educa tion] got behind the
LMS [Local Mana gement of Schools] mo vement in Cambridgeshir e,
where it did ha ve party support and w as going gr eat guns , except tha t
Cambridgeshir e got some what bor ed with being the ma gnet for every-
bod y from all o ver the country , and indeed interna tionall y . . . Brian
Smith w as pr etty passiona te about it as w as I and took ear ly retirement
and set up CEA with a vie w to pr opa gating LMS .
(DF)
A par ado x tha t is evident running thr ough these personal histories is tha t
a number of initia tives tha t were later tak en up centr ally and na tionall y
as part of the modernisa tion of educa tion had their origins within speci fic
local authorities . Indeed, these initia tives were concentr ated in a small n um-
ber of authorities , some of w hich also pr ovided k ey personnel in the ‘educa -
tion b usinesses’ (e.g. Essex, Surr ey, Cambridgeshir e and Bedf ordshir e – see
Cha pter 5 on partnerships). The shift in 1992 a way from HMI and local
authority inspection systems to contr acted-out Ofsted inspections w as also a
key push–pull factor as e xisting local authority posts w ere extinguished and
new commer cial opportunities cr eated. Several LEA IT C support and edu-
cational softw are development units w ere also ‘levered’ out of the pub lic
sector a t this point (e .g. Inclusi ve Technolo gy, a compan y with an ann ual
turno ver of almost £5 million, e volved a r egional Special Educa tion Media
Resour ce Centr e). In e ffect the ne w private pr oviders enact a v ersion of Ne w
Labour’s ‘enterprise her oism’: they tak e up a visionary , risky and enterprising
position within educa tional r efor m and tr ansfor mation in r elation to b ut
outside of the pub lic sector.
Thus , some of these k ey actors w ere ‘self-starters’. Others w ere headhunted
or ha ving ‘exhausted’ their car eers in a contr acting pub lic sector w ere looking
for ne w challenges or in some cases an esca pe from what they sa w as the
frustr ations of local authority politics . Several talk ed about the mo ve from
pub lic to pri vate as a liber ation:
it’s part of a w hole life decision. P eople mo ving from headship to con-
sultancies , saying “You’ll be liber ated. It’s a hell of a step . You’ll feel
liberated.” I had an o ffer of a job fr om Tribal Educa tion. And I kno w
John Simpson w ell and, if I w as going to mak e the mo ve and it w as into
the pri vate sector, I would ha ve to work for a compan y whose ethics
I admir ed.
(RG)
I saw it from the kind of politics , pub lic policy, professional angle ,
and got to the point w here my career had tak en me to the Deputy Chief
Executive of West London T ech in ear ly 2000, and I w as really con-
fronted with a car eer challenge , in tha t I could contin ue doing the job
tha t I was going to do , and I w as in m y early forties a t this point, b ut
I couldn’t r eally see my career pr ogressing much further .
(VF)
Existing social and pr ofessional netw orks and w orking r elationships w ere
often crucial in pr oviding opportunities or enticements f or the mo ve between
sectors.
Having been ar ound the place f or a bit, ha ving done a fair amount
of stu ff nationall y, one or tw o of them talk ed to me a bout going and
working for them. And I joined one compan y, Amey, thr ee or so y ears
ago no w.
(DM)
And e verybod y, all of us , have been headhunted lots of times o ver the
recent period.
(ES)
We tak e largely people w ho’ve been ther e and done it – not a t the end of
90 Economics and actors
their car eers, usuall y mid-car eer, very successful – we pay them a lot of
money, and w e expect them to do a r eally good job f or our clients . And
we’ve now got a bout 50 people . I think the consultancy b usiness will turn
over about 5 or 6 million this y ear.
(BH)
Economics and actors 91
In our compan y we’ve been, betw een us, dir ectors of educa tion of
proba bly ten local authorities – in T ribal Educa tion, betw een some
of our senior sta ff. We’ve got a gr oup of college principals w ho’ve
been a t the centr e of the college principal mar ket. We’ve got loads
of headteachers w ho’ve served in SHA [Secondary Headteachers’
Associa tion].
(JS)
92 Economics and actors
. . . it was very much working with and alongside people w ho were pretty
much of the same outlook as I had, because they had been br ought out
of local authorities .
(PD)
the London Bor ough of Haringey w hich contr acted with Ca pita to , essen-
tially, provide it with a senior mana gement team of good-quality people
Economics and actors 93
who came out of a successful LEA, man y of them fr om Nottingham,
and o ver the last thr ee years ha ve turned Haringey fr om a r eally very
weak LEA into one tha t’s actuall y doing r eally quite w ell now.
(DM)
But all the intervie wees made the point tha t their companies had to tr ans-
late langua ge into pr actice. They ha ve to ‘deliver’, to be as good as they
claim:
one of the things tha t I al ways talk a bout is or ganisa tions lik e ours ar e
really good a t talking the talk; they emplo y people lik e me to do it. But
mor e and mor e our futur e clients, when they’r e doing due diligence , want
to see tha t talk being w alked. They w ant to talk to people w ho you’re
working with; they w ant to get inside not just ho w well you’re doing b ut
how you’re doing it, and w hat the na tur e of the partnership is .
(BH)
The netw orks of social r elations betw een the b usinesses also serv e to
reinforce and sustain a v alues orienta tion (Gr ano vetter 1985: 496) and to
distinguish these pub lic services companies fr om ‘outsiders’ (see Bo x 4.2).
The Bannock Evaluation of News Ways of Working in Local Education
Authorities (2003) noted tha t ‘maintaining the pub lic sector ethos w as
adduced as a k ey argument a gainst outsour cing to pri vate pr oviders in
man y of our discussions’ (p . 23). To the e xtent to w hich these companies
can foreground their v alues commitments they ma y be able to assua ge the
fears and concerns of the pub lic sector. An emphasis on v alues is also
important in a ttr acting the ‘right’ people a way from the pub lic sector to
work in the educa tion b usinesses. These people see themselv es as being
able to carry their v alues with them acr oss the pub lic/private boundary .
The pr eponder ance of e x-pub lic sector workers creates and maintains a
particular v alues vocabulary and, ar guably, a particular ‘ethical en viron-
ment’ (Ha ydon 2004), although a pr oper understanding of ethical pr actice
and the interpla y of business imper atives with ‘pub lic sector’ values or the
reconte xtualisa tion of pub lic sector v alues within b usinesses would r equir e
further , mor e focused r esearch. 2 Clear ly though, the leading actors within
these companies ar e able to esta blish and maintain a langua ge of principles
which mak es recruits fr om the pub lic sector feel ‘comforta ble’ although
as the pub lic sector itself becomes mor e ‘business-like’ the potential f or
discrepancies ma y be reducing as pub lic sector v alues themselv es shift.
Maesschalk (2004: 465) ar gues tha t research sho ws tha t NPM (Ne w Pub lic
Mana gement) br ought a bout ‘a signi ficant shift in pub lic service ethical
standar ds’ and a ne w kind of ‘mor al mindset’ (p . 466). Perha ps ther e is a kind
of con vergence.
The onl y way I thought I could do the job is if I w orked for an or ganisa -
tion tha t shar ed pub lic sector v alues, principles and had similar w ays of
working. And in fairness they do , largely because their , 95 per cent of
Economics and actors 95
their, work was with the pub lic sector. And I think I’d r eally struggle if
those v alues and principles and w ays of working weren’t ther e.
(BH)
And since then w e’ve grown from nothing. No w just our educa tion
business has got the best part of near ly 500 sta ff in it and a turno ver of
45 millionish. And, y ou kno w, I think w e’ve created an or ganisa tion
which people seem to lik e to join and w ork for.
(JS)
Even in the lar ger mana gement services companies the educa tion di visions
appear to ha ve their o wn cultur e: “Ca pita SES w as a kind of island . . . they’d
sort of talk a bout y our tar gets . . . then w ent away again.” One r espondent
talk ed about cr eating in his compan y “a setting in w hich pub lic sector pr ofes-
sionals feel comf orta ble . . . So our ethos is actuall y very, very important to
us. In tha t aspect it does go vern the calibr e of the people tha t we get in” (RA).
Virtuall y, well, certainl y, all our consultant sta ff are from the pub lic
sector. It’s something tha t we think a ttr acts people to come and w ork for
us and potentiall y seems to be a ttr active to our clients if y ou look a t our
growth. 3
(JS)
It was tied in v ery much with our v alues, tha t we are not simpl y about
maximising pr ofit but we also felt w e wanted to do some inter esting
things in educa tion using the fr eedom of our position to do so . And our
compan y ethos has al ways been tha t we achieve mor e by working with
rather than simpl y decrying and sa ying onl y the pri vate sector can deli ver
this efficiently, because it’s just manifestl y not true .
(RA)
These then ar e not people or companies tha t ar e anta gonistic to wards the
pub lic sector – and indeed such a stance w ould be commer cially untena ble.
They do not see themselv es as turning their backs on pub lic sector v alues
but r ather ar e adamant tha t they ar e able to maintain and pursue their v alues
within the pri vate sector conte xt. But this is not simpl y a ma tter of personal
commitments; it is also a ma tter of b usiness sense. As public service companies,
their b usiness is pr edominantl y working with pub lic sector clients . Ther e is a
constant flow of infor mation ar ound the mar ketplace, and r eputa tion is a k ey
resour ce and selling point in r enewing or obtaining ne w contr acts. Repeat
business is absolutel y vital to financial via bility:
at the end of the da y, I can ne ver a fford to clash with m y client. Ther e’ll
be ar guments a bout perf or mance indica tors and so on, b ut a t the end of
the da y all tha t Ofsted or Surr ey or the LSC has to do is sa y, “Go a way.
96 Economics and actors
We can tak e a cynical or positi ve view of such beha viour – let’s tak e
a cynical vie w for a moment. This is a phase , part of mar ket-
building, esta blishing inr oads f or mor e work, then they could use
tha t as a sort of pla tfor m for learning ho w to do other things in
other schools .
(ESt)
The companies seek to esta blish and maintain cr edibility with depart-
ments and o fficials in others w ays, thr ough such ‘positional in vestments’
for example: “It w as quite clear to me tha t we wouldn’t mak e any
money out of it b ut equall y if we could do a r easona ble job ther e then
we’d earn a fair n umber of smarty points with the DfES” (DF).
Economics and actors 97
One of the things tha t has become a ppar ent to me with these local
authorities contr acts is tha t most of the account contr actors –
Atkins is an e xception – r egard them as kind of loss leaders , tha t
they actuall y didn’t e xpect to mak e money, or m uch money , out of
them, tha t they sa w it as a step to wards what might be a m uch
bigger mar ket and no w they’re all a bit upset tha t ther e isn’t one.
(PDg)
Hall and Lubina (2004: 269) mak e the point tha t contr act negotia tion is
a dynamic pr ocess and in their r esearch on the pri vatisation of pub lic
utilities found companies ‘submitting loss leaders or unr ealistic bids , in
the expecta tion of la ter up wards revision’.
Ther e may be elements her e of what Leys (2001: 83–4) calls ‘walk-in
ethics’. Loss leaders can ‘be r epresented as a “success story” and serv e
as an ar gument f or a wider opening-up to mar ket forces’ and once the
new mar kets ar e thor oughl y penetr ated then the cr edibility beha viours
will disappear . Less cynicall y we may see these instances as e xamples
of a ne w kind of Thir d Way, hybrid ca pitalism, as alr eady outlined.
Certainl y some of these educa tion b usinesses oper ate financiall y, and
in ter ms of working pr actices and w orking conditions , in ways which
are atypical.
We don’t w ant to contr act with y ou an y mor e.” I’m not in a position,
as Atkins ar guably did in Southw ark, tha t I can conclude this is too
difficult, I don’t w ant to do it an y mor e, and in e ffect walk away from it.
At the end of the da y, in ter ms of r elative power in a r elationship , the
client has got the gr eater po wer than the contr actor .
(DM)
In ter ms of cr edibility and w hat they can o ffer to pub lic sector or ganisa -
tions, these companies w ere also k een to distinguish betw een service impr ove-
ments and cost-cutting, tha t is betw een a substanti ve appr oach to educa tional
98 Economics and actors
issues and e ffectiveness and a b usiness or b udgetary a ppr oach in ter ms of
simple efficiencies. “All of those things help in ter ms of cr edibility. Because,
you kno w, tha t’s what people r eally want. Most LEAs , they don’t w ant cost-
cutting. They w ant to deli ver” (PD). This is also r eflected in the shift of
emphasis fr om ‘cost’ in CCT to ‘quality’ in Best V alue assessments . Thus ,
reputa tional risks ar e avoided: “our most pr ecious thing, especiall y as a gr ow-
ing compan y, is our r eputa tion. So w e don’t w ant to do an ything tha t messes
up our r eputa tion” (JS). Der ek Foreman e xplained: “w hat we want to do is to
demonstr ate tha t you don’t ha ve to be pub lic sector to deli ver a pub lic sector
ethos and tha t’s what we try to r emain true to”. He w ent on to sa y: “then y ou
earn r espect, pr ofessional r espect, and people use y ou a gain. It’s not tha t big
a mar ket. You couldn’t come in and r aid, e ven if you wanted to , and e xpect
then to ha ve a contin uing b usiness.” We “need to be cleaner than clean to get
and k eep business. Anything else would be ‘just b usiness suicide’ ”(JS).
I did a gr oup schools contr act out w hen I w as ther e. [The con-
tr actor] came in, and they w ere dreadful. And it w as a b unch of slick
people w ho just pick ed something o ff the shelf and said, “Look,
you kno w, we’re the biggest pr ovider and w e do it f or everybod y.
Why do you possib ly want to go some where else?”
Like other ‘comm unities of pr actice’ this one w orks ‘across compan y
boundaries’ (W enger 1998: 4) and ‘it de fines itself in the doing, as
members de velop among themselv es their o wn understanding of w hat
their pr actice is about’ (p . 5). It is a ‘home f or identities’ (p . 9), it ‘stew-
ards competencies’ (p . 8) and it is a netw ork thr ough w hich to ‘e xchange
and interpr et infor mation’ and ‘shar e learning and inter est’ (p. 8). One
respondent e xplained tha t: “ther e’s a very clear distinction betw een
selling services into the educa tion sector and calling y ourself an educa -
tion b usiness, and being in the educa tion b usiness. You kno w, our
business is educa tion.” As a gainst this , the pr ocesses of expansion,
acquisition and mer ger ar e likely to dilute this speci ficity over time
and ma y mean a gr eater r eliance on generic ‘solutions’. These ar e
businesses; they w ork within the disciplines of competition and pr ofit.
Pub lic sector v alues ma y be carried acr oss but ne w values and a
new cultur e do ha ve to be learned b y those w ho cr oss the pub lic–private
boundary , even if in a n umber of cases the scale of the enterprise they
are joining is mor e modest than tha t of their pr evious emplo yment.
We could perha ps then think of these as Thir d Way companies and Thir d
actors , hybrid or composite social subjects w ho r epresent a mix of entr epre-
neurism and pub lic services values. These actors embod y a blurring of
100 Economics and actors
positions , langua ges and perha ps ethics. The langua ge of the pub lic sector is
appr opria ted b ut also r econte xtualised and mer ged with the r egister of the
private sector . Ther e are dual commitments in pla y, to impr oving educa tion
and social justice and to the inter ests of their b usiness. Brereton and T emple
(1999: 455) refer to this as ‘a synthesis of pub lic and pri vate sector ethics’ – a
two-way process – and the emer gence of a ‘ne w pub lic service ethos’, which
for them r ests on ‘a mo ve from seeing the pub lic as a client/supplicant to one
of seeing them as a consumer/pur chaser’ (p. 471) and an ‘outcome-oriented
service ethos’. Both aspects w ere significant in the w ay the pri vate pr oviders
talk ed about their w ork, although the client w as in some cases ‘the pub lic’
and in other cases the pub lic sector itself .
Some r espondents distinguished betw een the pub lic and the pub lic sector
and vie wed their purpose as being to ad dress the needs of learners w ho had
been failed b y the pub lic sector. One talk ed about “sta ying focused on w hat
you’re actuall y doing, w hich is about pr oviding for the kids” (DF); and
another said: “m y position is kids deserv e much better than this” (BH).
Again this ma y be a for m of mor al accounting b ut also points to the need to
separ ate o ff individual fr om corpor ate moti ves. The pr ofit-seeking of com-
panies as financial entities does not tr ansla te dir ectly into the v alues of
individual emplo yees but the mor e senior the emplo yee the mor e immedia te
are the financial pr essures. The mor al and ethical comple xities her e have to be
tak en seriousl y. The pub lic sector does not ha ve an automa tic monopol y of
positi ve values commitments .
In r elation to the educa tion b usinesses, what we see here perha ps is a
version of w hat Sellers (2003) calls ‘pub licization’ wherein ‘companies ar e
increasingly forced to modify their pr ocedur es and pr ocesses in or der to
attr act, obtain and especiall y retain their contr acts’ (p. 607). Her e this is not
so much a ma tter of being f orced; it is an anticipa tion of and ‘willing’
accommoda tion to aspects of pub lic service cultur e and pr ocedur es – what
Woods et al. (forthcoming) call ‘an ada ptive pub lic service model’ – while
nonetheless being clear a bout w hat is being o ffered by way of expertise and
‘mana ged change’. Ho wever, Sellers, writing a bout pri vate prisons in the
Paul Br ett, w ho was the str ategic dir ector f or educa tion, took
Bedfordshir e into partnership; as soon as the first part of the con-
tr act was signed he then left and w ent to Ser co. And mo ved from
Serco. He went ther e; he was ther e for a bout a y ear, heading up
their educa tion di vision. And then mo ved to a compan y engaged
in, as I understand it, y ou kno w, providing schools o verseas.
Given the y outh of the ESI, ther e are relatively few actors with a pr oven
tr ack r ecord of success, particular ly in the mana gement of pr ojects and
contr acts. This cr eates a mo vement of such people ar ound the industry .
102 Economics and actors
Ther e is also mobility pr oduced b y the winning and losing of particular
contr acts of bodies of w ork.
Blurred visions
Following from the pr evious cha pter, one of the things I w ant to con vey here,
which is de veloped further belo w, is tha t the f or ms of mar ketisation and
privatisation w hich ar e manifest in pub lic sector educa tion ar e very diverse.
A simple binary of mar ket (pri vate sector) and b ureaucr atic-pr ofessional
(pub lic sector) for ms (with netw orks lying some where between the tw o) is
of limited anal ytic value. Nor , as Clar ke (2004: 108) points out, is ther e any
straightf orward historical sequence of the r eplacement of b ureaucr acy by
mar kets.
Her e blurring can r efer to a v ariety of le vels of anal ysis. I ha ve tried to
demonstr ate alr eady tha t the ESI b usinesses di ffer among themselv es and
indeed tha t the a gencies of the sta te, if we can call them tha t for con venience,
are differently positioned, sometimes f or di fferent purposes , in r elation to the
mar ket and the sta te. To tr eat the pri vate sector her e as of a piece , separ ate
and di fferent fr om a unif or m pub lic sector, is unhelpful and untena ble. Let me
suggest, a gain heuristicall y, tha t the binary of mar ket and b ureaucr acy can be
re-thought as a contin uum and tha t di fferent or ganisa tions can be positioned
differently along it. Nonetheless , in some cases this positioning is unsta ble.
The or ganisa tions ar e sometimes mor e mar ket-like and sometimes less , some
act sometimes v ery much lik e state agencies and sometimes less so and the sys-
tems of funding within w hich they w ork also change . Sometimes the di fferent
players work to gether with shar ed goals, as in some partnerships . Figur e 4.1
is an a ttempt to ca ptur e some of the messy positioning and inter-pla y of
bureaucr acies and mar kets on a contin uum of mar ketisation.
All of these di fferent sorts of or ganisa tions enga ge at times in mar ket acti v-
ities and act as though they w ere businesses and deri ve profit. Schools (lik e
Ash Gr een Junior , Gr eensward, Dix ons CT C, Varndean, etc.) sell services
and pr oducts to others . Colleges (like Richmond T ertiary and Manchester)
tender f or and ha ve run prison educa tion and J obcentr e Plus pr ogrammes.
Economics and actors 103
QCA, LSD A and NCSL, as noted alr eady, compete f or go vernment contr acts
in collabor ation with pri vate companies . PUK is a joint v entur e between
the Treasury and pri vate companies . LEAs lik e Kno wsley (with Mouchel
Parkman), Hampshir e and Surr ey (with VTES), Bir mingham (with Arthur
Andersen) and Esse x (with W indsor and Co .) have engaged in commer cial
joint v entur e activities. Uni versities like the IOE w ork with CEA and in
partnerships lik e Teachers’ TV and lik e other HE institutions mar ket their
services abroad as consultants; Brunel, Li verpool and the Uni versity of the
West of England ar e Academ y sponsors with the pri vate sector . On the other
hand, as noted alr eady, educa tion b usinesses undertak e pro bono and charit-
able work, tak e on loss-making contr acts, and enter into partnerships with
pub lic sector bodies and sta te agencies. Her e even the distinction betw een
exogenous and endo genous pri vatisation is too crude; ther e is an inter-w eaving
of values, moti ves, relationships , methods and f or ms of exchange acr oss what
was once a mor e discernib le pub lic–private divide.
An economy of policy
As well as buying experience and e xpertise fr om the pub lic sector, these
educa tion b usinesses ar e buying into or making use of esta blished social
relationships . Thr ough their a ppointments they acquir e access to and b uild
social netw orks of in fluence and inf or mation. In e ffect they ‘b uy’ personal
relationships , and insider kno wledge and trust. The senior personnel in
104 Economics and actors
particular w ho run or w ork for these companies often ha ve long-standing
relationships with go vernment departments and a gencies and esta blished
personal cr edibility with ci vil servants and policy-mak ers.
So we’ve got these links , so we kno w the people in DfES , so it’s not lik e
we’re unkno wn to them as indi viduals . . . You kno w, I kno w people in
the industry . You kno w, I kno w people in the TT A, I kno w people in
Ofsted, just because I’v e always kno wn them, not because I kno w them
now, because I’v e always kno wn them.
(Intervie wee)
Within and ar ound these r elationships , new kinds of policy netw orks ar e
being for med (see Cha pter 5).
Box 4.5 School firms’ forte ‘is lob bying for work’
Private companies br ought in b y the go vernment to run educa tion
owe their success to their skill a t lob bying ministers and ci vil ser-
vants r ather than an y evidence they can deli ver services better , a
think tank a ffiliated to the La bour P arty ar gues toda y.
(Guardian, 5 Ma y 2003)
The common fea tur e of the companies in volved in the emer ging
educa tion ‘mar ket’ is their prior e xperience of winning go vernment
contr acts of v arious kinds e ven if the substanti ve business is new
to them.
(Crouch 2003)
These r elationships pr ovide opportunities to ‘cash in’ cr edibility and ‘talk up’
the educa tion b usiness, to pr esent ideas and lob by for work, and ar gue for
extensions of the ar eas of enga gement of the pri vate sector in educa tion
services and deli very. To some e xtent a t least policies ar e muta ble and malle-
able. The e xperimental sta tus of pri vatisation policies lends itself to e xtension
or ela bor ation of ne w initia tives stemming fr om various sour ces and thus to
new mar ket opportunities . Sometimes w hat is talk, w hat is lob bying and w hat
is advice become b lurr ed.
Tha t’s exactly my job. I’m working way ahead, trying to get go vernment
policy to be mor e open than it curr ently is, to work with policy-mak ers in
ter ms of sa ying ther e are different ways of doing things , to de velop con-
testa bility as a mor e universally applied concept and to ensur e tha t we’re
well positioned to bene fit from tha t.
(BH)
Economics and actors 105
So all the time I’m sa ying to di fferent people in go vernment, “By the w ay,
we can do this; ar e you inter ested? We can do this; ar e you inter ested?”
(JS)
I am v ery acti ve in the CBI pri vate sector educa tion gr oup. And thr ough
tha t we’ve met Stephen T wigg [Educa tion J unior Minister and Minister
of Sta te 2002–5] to talk a bout the mar ket and w e’ve met others .
(ES)
We’re aligned with the CBI pub lic services group , with the Business Sup-
port Associa tion, Business Services Associa tion. I chair their educa tion
and tr aining panel. And w e’re a recognised consultee [inaudib le] of the
department. So w e have regular meetings with ci vil servants and min-
isters and so on, as do chief educa tion o fficers, as do b uilders and so on.
(DM)
These ongoing enga gements in and with the sta te also o ffer the possibility of
seeing new policies ear ly and being a ble to pr epar e for the w ork of selling
policy media tion or r elevant support services or tr aining to schools (see
Cha pter 6) bef ore the policy is launched. As I ha ve already noted, and will
do a gain, ne w policies ar e new business opportunities .
You go along with the initia tives, so if beha viour is an issue then y ou
tar get it a) because people car e about it b ut also ther e’s likely to be
funding f or it either b y our go vernment or b y the schools themselv es,
so the mar keting is not e xactly random.
(DF)
Thr ough ongoing w ork and esta blished contacts these companies also ha ve
relationships or partnerships with non-go vernmental a gencies and associ-
ations and or ganisa tions in volved in pub lic sector educa tion – N AGM, TT A,
NCSL, N AHT , SHA, etc. – as w ell as uni versities. Income gener ation is
increasingly important to pub lic sector and non-departmental or ganisa tions
and associa tions. “So w e founded a school in peda gogic research with De
Montf ort Uni versity, who ar e a teacher tr aining uni versity, and f ound tha t
extremely useful, because w e brought academics in to sit alongside ourselv es as
resour ce producers” (PD). Further mor e, involvements in the sta te can be mor e
106 Economics and actors
or less intima te or f or mal – in ter ms of giving ad vice, paid consultancies , doing
evalua tions of policies or pr ogramme or r eviews of departments or functions ,
or running pr ogrammes and services on contr act. In some of these ca pacities
ther e can be v ery fine or bar ely discernib le lines between ad vice, paid w ork and
business ad vanta ge – mor e blurring. One r espondent w ho worked as a con-
sultant f or the DfES w hile a bid der for contr acts found the ethical dilemmas
involved difficult to mana ge and ga ve up his consultancy r ole:
I was looking a t pr ogress and risks acr oss all of the pr ojects, including
those of our competitors . But I just decided ear ly on tha t I’d shar e a lot
of infor mation, I’d just shar e all the inf or mation I w as picking up fr om
all the di fferent pr ojects, so tha t the other companies w ere actuall y get-
ting a bene fit from these sessions . And it just got sill y in the sense it’s such
a huge con flict of inter ests tha t when it came to changing arr angements it
wasn’t sustaina ble . . . it was extremely helpful in kno wing ho w things
worked, in a v ariety of cir cumstances , with the w hole r ange of a ttaina ble
sponsors . And it helped a lot in risk identi fication because the sour ces of
risk ar e very varied.
Last w eek we did a pr esenta tion to the Ca binet O ffice, as a gr oup , so this
wasn’t just educa tion. And the feedback w e got fr om the Ca binet O ffice
was we were unsuccessful because w e weren’t able to con vince them tha t
we were a sufficiently integr ated or ganisa tion to meet their comple x
requir ements.
The awarding of lar ge contr acts is also in some cases dependent on educa -
tion companies being a ble to give financial guar antees w hich ar e only possib le
with the backing of lar ge transna tional companies: “ther e is no way tha t
CEA w ould ha ve got the contr act if it had been on the stand without Mott
MacDonald” and “Q AA would bid f or small things and w ould do things in
partnership . But the r esour ces of SER CO sud denly gave them m ulti, m ulti
million contr acts” (quoted in Mahon y et al. 2004). This is one dimension
of what Jessop (2002: 240) calls ‘meta-go vernance’ or the conditions f or go v-
ernance and, speci fically, ‘meta-exchange’, tha t is ‘the r eflexive redesign of
individual mar kets’ or her e the cr eation or in vention of mar kets ‘by modify-
ing their oper ation and articula tion’ (p. 241). This is done f or mally, as above,
and inf or mally. Her e the ESI is liter ally a policy le ver for the sta te, a means of
achieving its ends , a for m of go vernance .
One of the things tha t the pri vate sector’s in volvement has been a ble
to do is le verage capacity fr om the system and mak e it available mor e
generally to the system. So the LEA interv ention pr ojects tha t the DfES
initia ted, beginning w ay back in the la te 90s, had a n umber of entir ely
beneficial consequences , but one of them w as to r e-deplo y good-quality
people fr om a) w here they were already into b) w here they pr oba bly
would ne ver, ever have thought of going.
(DM)
“Oh, w e’re going to 10 Do wning Str eet.” Well, I tell you what, it’s the
easiest place to get to if y ou’ve got good ideas , you kno w. Because we’ve
got our o wn Ca binet O ffice connections and talk to the Home Secr etary,
Foreign Secretary, all sorts of stu ff, around acti vities, because the go v-
ernment ar e desper ate to see their ideas , as distinct fr om visions , reflected
in a mirr or of achie vement.
(PD)
In other w ords the r epresenta tives of the pri vate sector ar e in regular con -
versation with go vernment and part of the ‘policy cr eation comm unity’
(Mahon y et al. 2004) in much the same w ay as the teacher tr ade unions and
LEAs w ere in the 1950s and 1960s . The sta te is primus inter pares in these
conversations and acts as ‘media tor of collecti ve intelligence’ (Jessop 2002:
243) as well as major funder and client and anima teur of the mar ket. These
relationships and inter actions ar e examples of w hat Rhodes calls ‘policy net-
works’, and he sees ‘the policy of mar ketizing pub lic services’ as accelerating
their m ultiplica tion and di fferentia tion. In his v ersion of go vernance such
networks ar e a new alterna tive to ‘the star k choice betw een hier archy and
mar ket’ (Rhodes 1999: xix) (see Cha pter 5). It is ar guable whether Leys’s
star ker view of these changes as ‘media ting a basic shift in the balance of
power betw een mar ket forces and political f orces’ (2001: 63) is appr opria te
here, but clear ly ther e are ongoing changes in po wer relations and ther e is a
mix of the ‘structur al po wer’ and ‘corpor ate agency’ of business a t work her e
(a distinction used b y Farns worth 2004).
Ho wever, it a ppears tha t in some r espects policy and policy pr onounce-
ments ha ve outrun the ca pacity of pri vate sector or ganisa tions to partici-
pate in the educa tion b usiness. The Bannock Evaluation of New Ways of
Working in Local Education Authorities (2003) noted tha t ‘The de velopment
of the [educa tion services] mar ket has been less than w as hoped b y policy-
mak ers and r emains pa tchy in ter ms of the r ange of services a vailable and
in ter ms of geo graphical distrib ution’ (par a. 27, p. 37). Further , the mar ket
is not the onl y curr ent policy le ver in the w ork of meta governance . As
noted pr eviously, outsour cing was onl y one of a n umber of ‘ne w ways’
experiments f oster ed by the DfES in the r efor m of LEAs . Metaor ganisa tion
is another mode and another le ver, the ‘reflexive redesign of or ganiza tions’
and the ‘cr eation of inter media ting or ganiza tions’ (Jessop 2002: 241). At the
level of local go vernment and in educa tional institutions this tr ansla tes into
Economics and actors 109
endo genous pr ojects of pub lic sector r efor m and ‘contin uous impr ovement’
– tactics lik e mentoring, twinning, secondment and the use of boar ds and
trusts as not-f or-pr ofit or insider solutions w ere sponsor ed or encour aged
and w ere judged to ha ve been successful in r elation to a n umber of ‘w eak’
authorities . Pri vatisation ma y have a high pr ofile but in some ar eas of pub lic
sector r efor m it is a mar ginal, or tempor ary, device or one among se veral
policy de vices being used and one of man y experiments in the pr ocess
of refor m. The signi ficance of pri vatisation should be neither o ver- nor
under-estima ted. The outcome of r efor m is not a total tr ansfor mation b ut
rather a v ersion of ‘w elfare mix’ or ‘welfare plur alism’ and a mix of endo g-
enous and e xogenous pri vatisations, as well as some ne w for ms of sta te
activity.
Nonetheless , the sta te is a very acti ve mar ket-mak er. One r espondent noted
tha t his compan y “started life sa ying we would not do it [interv ention con-
tracts] . . . it’s only because w e got kind of b ullied into it b y the DfES tha t we
feel ther e’s a kind of mor al ob ligation to kind of contin ue to do it”. Indeed
some of the r espondents made the point tha t some of the interv ention con-
tr acts awarded had gone to mar ket newcomers as a w ay of encour aging their
participa tion in the mar ket; Atkins in Southw ark and Mouchel P arkman in
NE Lincolnshir e were mentioned.
When the go vernment w ere looking to gr ow the mar ket, and they did it
fairly crudel y, they w ent to a n umber of or ganisa tions and said, y ou
kno w those big go vernment contr acts you did on X, w ould y ou lik e to
carry on winning them? Y es, please. Fine , go into educa tion; y ou need
some people .
The limits of the curr ent mar ket were also noted b y other r espondents: “it’s
still, from man y, man y areas of educa tion services , a limited mar ketplace, or
very much a de veloping one” (RA).
Ther e is an a ppar ent contr adiction her e. On the one hand, the go vernment
is ‘growing’ the educa tion b usiness, making a mar ket, but, on the other , has
limits to its enthusiasm to pri vatise; “it’s dependent on the w hims of go vern-
ment” (RA). Sel wyn and Fitz (2001: 140) r emind us tha t ‘government is not a
homo genous actor’. The LEA ‘interv ention’ b usiness is a case in point. The
initial flurry of such interv entions has almost stopped, the Isles of Scill y and
North East Lincolnshir e (2005) being the onl y recent examples. One r espond-
ent r eported being told b y a DfES o fficial tha t “interv ention is dead” b ut
went on to sa y:
Actuall y we’re now being told, “No , it isn’t”, and ther e will be mor e of
the North East Lincolnshir e kind of pr oject. The mor e we get into joint
area reviews and the ne xt round of CP A, and ann ual perf or mance
assessments , all tha t kind of stu ff, is going to shak e out mor e and mor e
and mor e.
A 2005 report pub lished b y the CBI (2005) is v ery much a r esponse to w hat
Economics and actors 111
the ESI sees as the failur e of government to de velop and e xpand the
educa tion services mar ket:
Despite the initial success of the interv ention policy and the use of the
private sector in impr oving educa tional a ttainment, the mar ket has failed
to de velop beyond the initial interv ention pr ocess. The mar ket is set to
decline when contr acts end during the ne xt four to six y ears, primaril y
because the go vernment had no str ategy in place f or sustaining the
mar ket beyond the initial interv ention pr ocess.
(p. 23)
The r eport aims to sho w tha t ‘outsour ced’ authorities pr oduce gr eater
achievement impr ovements in e xamina tion r esults than do equi valent pub -
licly run authorities (cf . Farns worth 2004). Ho wever, the work of pri vate
companies in outsour ced LEAs has a ttr acted a v ery mixed pr ess. The TES
reported:
inter estingly, in the childr en’s services mar ket they’r e being m uch mor e
open. They called a bout five or six of us in to talk with them a bout ho w
they made the mar ket and ho w they would e xpose their thinking a bout
childr en’s services to the mar ket, so we jointl y planned a w hole series of
seminars ar ound the country .
It’s har d work and it’s risk y work. So our choice is nor mally we want to
work with people tha t want to be good to gr eat, b ut it has to be funded b y
them. So on the asset side , ther e’s a contin uing focus on contin uation of
Economics and actors 113
impr ovement. And y ou’ve got the r estatement in the ne xt round of CP As
on Best Value.
(BH)
In this cha pter I ha ve both described some fea tur es of the ne w educa tion
businesses involved in the pri vatisations of educa tion services and intr oduced
some of the k ey actors within the e volving ESI and indica ted the r elation-
ships they and their b usinesses ha ve with the pub lic sector and the sta te and
their r ole within go vernance . I ad dress some aspects of their ‘pr oduct’ in
Cha pter 6. R unning thr ough the account is an a ttempt to demonstr ate the
comple xity – structur al, political, personal and ethical – of the ESI and ther e-
fore the need to a void crude gener alisations. I ha ve char acterised them as
hybrid or Thir d Way businesses. The importance of social r elations, trust and
credibility in the embed ding of these b usinesses has been emphasised. The
role of the sta te as mar ket-mak er is a crucial aspect of the w ay the ESI w orks
and ho w it is evolving. Pri vatisation has to be seen, in part, as a tool of policy ,
a means of r efor m and modernisa tion of the pub lic sector. Mor e generally, as
in the pr evious cha pter, the possibility of contin uing to use a simple pub lic
sector/pri vate sector binary has been called into question. On the other
hand, I ha ve sought to str ess the ways in which ESI actors , and others fr om
business, ar e now ‘talking’ dir ectly to and a bout policy and ar e part of the
construction and dissemina tion of policy ideas .
The following cha pter f ollows on dir ectly to focus mor e specifically on the
‘work’ partnerships do in b lurring boundaries and dissemina ting pri vate
practices and pr oviding points of entry f or ne w mar ket opportunities and to
address mor e directly the issue of go vernance . It also e xplor es some other
aspects of the r elationships in and with the sta te of the educa tion b usinesses,
business philanthr opists and other r epresenta tives of and ‘her oes’ of business
as new ‘policy comm unities’.
5 New governance, new
communities, new
philanthropy
Picking up themes intr oduced in Cha pters 1 and 2, in this cha pter I look mor e
closely at the w ork of the educa tion b usinesses as part of governance or what
is sometimes confusingl y called ‘new governance’ (Rhodes 1995) and mor e
broadl y tr ace the participa tion of b usiness and the ‘ne w philanthr opists’
in new for ms of go vernance thr ough partnerships and social netw orks and
identify some ‘policy comm unities’ which ar e evident within and ar ound cur-
rent educa tion policies . I use the idea of netw orks her e in a descripti ve and
anal ytic way, rather than in an y nor mative sense, to r efer to a f or m of go vern-
ance tha t inter-w eaves and inter-r elates mar kets and hier archies – a kind of
messy hinter land w hich supplements and sometimes sub verts these other
for ms. ‘Governance’ is one of those fashiona ble ter ms which b y virtue of
loose and pr omiscuous use is in danger of being r ender ed meaningless b ut
it is also pr oducti vely malleable. Her e I use or try it out f or siz e rather than
debate this and r elated concepts (see Ne wman 2001 and Clar ke 2004 for
debate). I deplo y the ter m in a fair ly simple and str aightf orward way to
mean the use of ‘socio-political inter actions , to encour age man y and v aried
arr angements f or coping with pr oblems and to distrib ute services among
several actors’ (Rhodes 1995: 5), tha t is a ‘catalyzing [of] all sectors – pub lic,
private and v oluntary – into action to solv e their comm unity’s pr oblems’
(Osborne and Gae bler 1992: 20). In gener al ter ms this is the mo ve towards
a ‘polycentric sta te’ or ‘new localism’ and ‘a shift in the centr e of gravity
around w hich policy cy cles move’ (Jessop 1998b: 32).
New governance
As signalled alr eady, I do not intend to suggest a kind of once-and-f or-all
shift fr om old go vernment to ne w governance her e, but r ather the cr eation of
an unsta ble hybridity w hich involves ‘different for ms of coor dina tion and
contr ol’ (Newman 2001: 31) w hich inter act and ar e often in tension. So w e
need to bear in mind tha t alongside pol ycentrism ther e has also been ‘an inten-
sification of a “command and contr ol” style of go verning’ (Ne wman 2001:
163), a concentr ation of po wer at the centr e as well as a mo vement to local-
ities (in some cases outside of democr atic local go vernment). In educa tion,
New governance, communities, philanthropy 115
for example, the Prime Minister’s P olicy Unit is no w a key site of policy
initia tion. 1 Finall y, to be clear , I certainl y want to di vest the concept, as used
here, of its nor mative connota tions – tha t is, the ar gument tha t governance is
better than go vernment (see Rhodes 1995).
Centr al to go vernance is the subsidiary concept of network. In m uch
of the liter atur e a contr ast is dr awn wherein governance is accomplished
thr ough netw orks, while government is done thr ough hier archies. Rhodes
(1995: 9) uses ‘the ter m netw ork to describe the se veral inter dependent
actors in volved in deli vering services . . . these netw orks ar e made up of
organiza tions w hich need to e xchange r esour ces (money, infor mation, e xpert-
ise) to achie ve their objecti ves’. He ad ds tha t ‘governance also suggests
tha t netw orks ar e self-organizing’ (p. 10). Ne wman (2001: 108) ela bor ates,
pointing out tha t the go vernance liter atur e views networks ‘in ter ms of
plur al actors enga ged in a r eflexive process of dialo gue and inf or mation
exchange’. Again ther e is a degr ee of misleading clarity a bout the concept
of netw orks, as used in the go vernance liter atur e. It is either used v ery
abstr actly or deplo yed to r efer to a v ery wide variety of r eal and pr actical
social r elationships . Her e I want to a void tha t vaguery as best I can and
explor e two sorts of netw orks which ‘catalyse’ business in the deli very of
educa tion services and the r econfiguration and dissemina tion of policy dis-
courses. The first is partnerships and the second is a set of social networks
I shall call ‘policy comm unities’ – a particular v ersion of netw orks. ‘Policy
comm unity’ is yet another trick y and slippery ter m which co vers a lot of
ground. One w ay of tid ying it up is to think of a contin uum of social and
ideolo gical cohesion. ‘At one end of this contin uum ar e policy comm unities,
as integr ated, sta ble and e xclusive policy netw orks; at the other end ar e issue
networks of loosel y connected, m ultiple, and often con flict-rid den members’
(Skogstad 2005 p . 5). My e xamples ar e closer to the f or mer than the la tter
but ar e not as integr ated, sta ble and e xclusive as all tha t and they ar e insti-
tutionalised via the w ork of various linka ges devices (including k ey persons)
and lead or ganisa tions. Helpfull y Newman (2001: 163) also distinguishes
networks and partnerships quite car efully and asserts tha t ‘partnerships as a
policy a ppr oach m ust be distinguished fr om netw ork for ms of go vernance’.
‘Networks ar e infor mal and fluid, with shifting membership and ambiguous
relationships and accounta bilities’ (p. 108), whereas partnerships ‘ar e mor e
stable groupings with de fined structur es and pr otocols’ (p . 108). 2 These la tter
definitions fit the cases I pr esent fair ly well. In the first case the f ocus is almost
entir ely on the educa tion b usinesses and some of their w ork pr actices and
arr angements in and with the pri vate sector . In the second the f ocus is
broader and e xplor es the participa tion of a v ariety of social actors and
organisa tions fr om b usiness and ‘ne w philanthr opy’ as an emer ging ‘policy
comm unity’.
116 New governance, communities, philanthropy
Partnerships – working with and in and on and for the
public sector
In ter ms of the anal ysis of curr ent r egulatory pr ocesses, governance partner-
ships ar e a key device in as m uch as they pr ovide ‘linka ges, coupling and
congruence betw een actors and spaces’ (MacK enzie and Lucio 2005: 500)
and ar e a way of delivering policy outcomes thr ough colla bor ative networks
and di verse allegiances and commitments . They ar e fundamental to the ar chi-
tectur e of governance and to the f ostering and mana gement of pub lic/private
relationships and ar e a key featur e of Thir d Way political rhetoric.
We will encour age partnerships betw een the educa tion service and all
those w ho ha ve an inter est in its success . . . par ents, comm unities, the
cultur al sector and b usiness.
(DfES 2001: 17)
The contr oversial r ecord of some of these [LEA interv ention] contr acts
in the past y ear has cast doubt on their futur e both politicall y and finan-
cially. But an anal ysis by the TES reveals the Go vernment has learned
lessons from the failur es, and a mor e co-oper ative relationship betw een
the pub lic and pri vate sector is being de veloped.
(TES archive, 30 January 2004)
It’s always been a ma tter of during tha t period of time being a ble to
develop other services . We’ve ended up being a kind of partnership , you
kno w, often quite an inf or mal one , with the local authority concerned,
tha t’s built up in ter ms of some kind of m utual r elationship .
(RA)
The other acquisition of the gr oup this y ear was an or ganisa tion called
‘Career Finder’, and tha t had been an o ffshoot of Conne xions Somerset.
They had a series of tr aining and adult guidance contr acts in the W est
Country . And it w as sitting incr easingly ill at ease with the Conne xions
New governance, communities, philanthropy 119
service ther e, for a v ariety of r easons. And w e basicall y took tha t on, set
it up as a joint v entur e, with the Conne xions partnership f or Somerset
still maintaining a minority inter est in it. It’s a majority Pr ospects-o wned
compan y, and w e’re now bidding for ad ditional w ork from Jobcentr e
Plus and so on. It’s a bout enterprise , tr aining and a w hole r ange of
different sorts of tr aining and support f or adults , and acti vities.
(RA)
Of course partnerships also e xist among pub lic sector or ganisa tions, some-
times as an alterna tive to pri vatisation.
Go-T eaching a consortium of 12 LEAs acr oss the south w est tha t pr o-
vides suppl y teachers and also helps schools find teachers f or per manent
positions . Esta blished b y Devon in 1999 and in volving a pri vate partner
(Teaching Associa tes) from 2002 as a stand alone v entur e.
(http://www .britgo .org/teaching/teaching.html )
We were forced do wn their thr oats [but] they trusted me . They certainl y
gave us the opportunity [and] w e moved from gen uinely a very fierce and
confr onta tional suspicion thr ough to partnerships . Tha t didn’t mean w e
didn’t fall out fr om time to time . . . now we’re in the pr ocess initia ted b y
the Bor ough and b y the DfES a bout sta ying with them.
Such local authority actors ar e what Leys (2001: 63) calls ‘a ne w pub lic sector
social type’ who displa y ‘new personality tr aits’, with a concomitant shu ffling
off of older ‘oper ating codes’. Some of the educa tion b usiness actors ma y fall
into this ca tegory themselv es and ther e are other high-pr ofile examples in
educa tion of pub lic sector entr epreneurs lik e Stanley Goodchild, co-f ounder
of 3Es (ex-headteacher and chief educa tion o fficer) (3Es like VT works with
Surr ey CC), and Sir K evin Satchwell, Headteacher of T elford CT C. “The
government ha ve lubrica ted the mechanism. If people or or ganisa tions ar e
up for it y ou can get on and do things” (K evin Satchwell, quoted in TES,
‘Businessman w ho would r escue schools’, 13 No vember 1998).
As noted alr eady, some authorities ar e willing to outsour ce or to partner
with the pri vate sector as w ays of pr eserving and dissemina ting and bene fiting
from their in-house e xpertise and, as e xplor ed above, the pri vate sector has
much to gain fr om the e xperience, expertise, credibility and social netw orks
of pub lic sector actors .
We are just a bout to enter into a joint v entur e with Surr ey County
Council to cr eate a joint v entur e business, called VT4S , 4S standing
for Surr ey School Support Services . . . Surr ey’s rationale f or this is to
create a means of a ttr acting and r etaining good-quality people to w ork in
Surr ey for Surr ey schools and f or the LEA and then to f or m a b usiness
jointl y with the pri vate sector partner to mak e those services a vailable
outside Surr ey to other LEAs and schools . So it’ll sell services to Surr ey
schools and schools else where, and LEAs else where, on a consultancy
basis. It’ll compete with HE consultancy in schools and LEA-r elated
contr acts.
(DM)
So in Li verpool 2020 and Kno wsley 2020 the council o wns 20 per cent of
the compan y. It’s set up as a stand-alone , but they actuall y physically and
legally own 20 per cent of it. So w hatever pr ofit tumb les out of tha t they
get 20 per cent. And tha t’s a model tha t we’re finding local go vernment is
really inter ested in.
(BH)
Her e the compan y see themselves working alongside the pub lic sector, ‘add-
ing capacity’ as they put it, r ather than w orking ‘with’ or de veloping ca pacity.
In other cir cumstances the in volvement of a pri vate sector contr actor can
actuall y mean the ‘br okering’ of a v ariety of r esour ces rather than dir ect
involvement, and a gain this is in part a bout the cr edibility and accepta bility
of ‘services’.
The field of educa tion has been gr eatly remade thr ough corpor ate influ-
ence as b usiness ter ms of accounta bility, perfor mance, efficiency, up ward
mobility, and economic competition ha ve become omnipr esent in edu-
cational policy rhetoric and journals displacing tr aditional discussion of
the r ole of schools in making people w ho can understand and impr ove the
world or li ve a full life or participa te in civic life.
Goldman Sachs is w ell presented in the netw orks outlined. “In the Sta tes in
particular charita ble giving is part of life: it’s m uch mor e a way of life over
ther e than it is her e” (ESt). On the other hand, ther e is a re-emergence of the
Victorian, colonial philanthr opic tr adition, ‘outsiders beha ving as if they
were missionaries’ (Ea gle 2003: 33), represented for instance b y the United
Learning T rust, and other r eligious impulses (V ardy, Edmiston, P ayne, and
the Oasis T rust, w hich also carry undertones of e vangelism), as w ell as a civic
version of this thr ough the inter ested philanthr opy of self-made b usiness
millionair es (Kalms, Harris , Petchey, Garr ard, Lampl, etc.). At an indi vidual
level the Ne w Labour discourse of ‘ci vic responsibility’, w hich is another w ay
of thinking a bout these philanthr opic impulses , may also be articula ting a
reaction to the Tha tcherite v alues of indi vidualism and self-inter est – another
126 New governance, communities, philanthropy
aspect of post-neo-liber alism. “And ob viously under Blair it’s been educa tion,
educa tion, educa tion, and it has r aised people’s a wareness of what’s going on
in the system and ho w it’s everybod y’s problem not just the go vernment’s”
(ESt). The la tter is another f or m of b usiness philanthr opy manifest in the pr o
bono w ork and v olunteering of w orkers in companies lik e McKinsey’s and
programmes lik e Teach America and T each First (see pa ge 132). For some
companies this is no w a way of retaining and moti vating sta ff as well as
playing its part in making up ‘portf olios of philanthr opic investments’ w hich
may contrib ute to the pr omotion or legitima tion of corpor ate br ands: “it
creates a nice w ar m feeling amongst their customers , the r ecognition of their
name . . . and team-b uilding” (ESt), and corpor ate giving is of course ‘tax
efficient’.
In various w ays – Academies , specialist schools , Teach First – philanthr opy
is increasingly incorpor ated into sta te policy and is an a voidance of both
bureaucr atic and mar ket difficulties. It pr ovides a for m of ‘fast’ and often
very personal policy action. P ersonal ‘dona tions’ ar e solicited thr ough the
personal r elationships of people lik e Tony Blair and Andr ew Adonis . Some
of the participants in this ne w philanthr opy constitute a philanthr opic elite
which is enga ged with go vernment, party and sta te in a n umber of w ays:
thr ough b usiness links , making party dona tions, in the r eceipt of a wards
and honours and positions in and ar ound the sta te itself. (Thr ee Academ y
sponsors w ere also involving in making loans to the La bour P arty, and an
adviser to the ASST r esigned after indica ting to an under cover reporter tha t
sponsorship of an Academ y would deli ver an honour – http://educa tion
.Guar dian.co .uk/ne wschools/story/0,,1703426,00.html. ) Again I am not sug-
gesting tha t all of this is totall y new. The City of London institutions (str etch-
ing back thr ough the li very companies) ha ve a long history of philanthr opic
engagement (see Gr een 2005: 43–4). What is different is the dir ect relation
of ‘giving’ to policy and the mor e appar ent in volvement of gi vers in policy
comm unities and a mor e ‘hands on’ a ppr oach to the use of dona tions: “they
want to be in volved in the w ay the pr oject is mana ged, for example” (ESt)
(see page 131 on Arpad Busson). This is w hat Peter Lampl (see Bo x 5.2)
calls ‘strategic philanthr opy’ (http://www .philanthr opyuk.or g/guideto giving/
personal4_main.asp ).
What is emer ging her e is a new ‘architectur e of regulation’ based on inter -
locking r elationships betw een dispar ate sites in and bey ond the sta te. Policy is
being ‘done’ in a m ultiplicity of ne w sites ‘tied to gether on the basis of
alliance and the pursuit of economic and social outcomes’ (MacK enzie and
Lucio 2005: 500), although the str ength of such an alliance should not be
over-sta ted. These comm unities contain some ‘str ange bedfello ws’ and con-
tain actors w hose contin uing allegiance is to the Conserv ative Party, as
well as others w ho ha ve made political dona tions to both La bour and the
Conserv atives. Some of the people in Netw ork 1 (Figur e 5.1) ar e ‘survivors’
or carry-o vers from the policy netw orks of the Conserv ative governments:
Paul J udge,7 Stanley K alms and Cyril T aylor.
New governance, communities, philanthropy 127
agencies, pub lic service and philanthr opy) and, as noted alr eady, multiple
purposes and lo yalties. They ar e at di fferent times , or sometimes sim ul-
taneousl y, representa tives of business, ad visers to the sta te, philanthr opists,
mor al entr epreneurs or doing pub lic service – and these ambiguities do their
own work and ar e yet another kind of b lurring of pub lic and pri vate. Some
may even be thought of as ‘tr ansactors’ ha ving both ‘shar ed’ and ‘ad ditional
goals’ (Wedel 2001: 130) – tha t is pub lic and personal moti ves together.
Others ar e obviously occasional participants and ha ve no positions or r oles as
New governance, communities, philanthropy 129
such. P eople mo ve across and within such netw orks and as w e have seen
between the pri vate and pub lic sectors, and ther e are new kinds of car eers
which can be constructed within them. Some people w ho occup y multiple
positions join things up . They ar e catalysts or syner gisers (for example, Mary
Richar dson, Dir ector of the HSBC Educa tion T rust, an e x-state school head
and educa tion dame; Sir Cyril T aylor, Chair man of the Specialist Schools
and Academies T rust; and V alerie Br agg, Headteacher of Kingshurst CT C,
co-founder of 3Es and Chief Ex ecutive of the Be xley Academ y). Women ar e
much mor e in evidence her e than w as the case in the senior positions of the
educa tion b usinesses. The netw orks also contain flows of influence as w ell as
flows of people and, as w e have seen, influence is carried back and f orth
across the boundaries betw een the old pub lic and pri vate sectors . Resour ces
130 New governance, communities, philanthropy
are exchanged, inter ests ar e served and r ewards ar e achieved. Tony Cann
CBE (600th on the Sunday Times Rich List in 1999) is an inter esting example:
founder and no w Vice-Chair man of Pr omethean T echnolo gies Gr oup (a
whiteboar d compan y with turno ver in 2003 in e xcess of £38 million – com-
pan y website), he is Chair man of the U fi (Uni versity for Industry) boar d,
member of N ACETT and f or mer member of FEFC , and also sits on FE
college and uni versity boar ds. Promethean is also a ‘partner’ of T each First
and the Specialist Schools T rust. 8 Tony Cann has also r aised the possibility of
sponsoring an Academ y in Blackb urn w here his compan y is based and w as a
sponsor of the Blackb urn EAZ. Some Academies , like Sand well and Be xley,
New governance, communities, philanthropy 131
thr ough their sponsors , supporters and pr oject mana gers, re-occur and ar e
the focus of se veral linka ges in the netw orks.
In Netw ork 1 what is particular ly noticea ble is the participa tion of r epre-
senta tives of finance ca pital: Goldman Sachs in particular , and the Man
Gr oup and HSBC (HSBC is a member of the PPP F orum and acti ve in
the PFI mar ket with equity inter ests in a n umber of schools pr ojects). P aul
Dunning of HSBC is a dir ector and trustee of ARK, as is Stanley Fink of the
Man Gr oup and J ennifer Moses of Goldman Sachs . ARK f ounder Arpad
Busson is senior partner of EIM fund mana gement compan y (with assets
reported as r anging fr om £5 billion to £10 billion). He describes educa tion
as “in crisis” and “the biggest issue go vernment face toda y” and ar gues
tha t “Charities m ust tr eat donors as if they w ere shar eholders” ( Observer,
29 Ma y 2005). Jon Aisbitt, once of Goldman Sachs , now of the Man Gr oup ,
is the pr oposed sponsor of an Academ y in Brighton (in 2003 he w as 406th
on the Sunday Times Rich List with a personal f ortune of £80 million and
he dona ted £250,000 to the La bour P arty election campaign of 2001); with
Harv ey McGr ath of the Man Gr oup (351st on the 2004 Sunday Times Rich
List with £112 million) and Ga vyn Da vies (ex-Chair man of the BBC) of
Goldman Sachs he is a trustee of Ne w Philanthr opy Capital, w hich ad vises
companies on philanthr opic investments , including ad vice on participa tion in
the Academies pr ogramme.
As well as trusts , other kinds of pub lic sector or ganisa tions ar e integr ated
into these netw orks; the Institute of Educa tion, Uni versity of London no w
has an HSBC iNet 9 Chair in Interna tional Educa tion Leadership , held b y
David Hopkins , pr eviously Dir ector of the DfES Standar ds and E ffectiveness
Unit, and in 2004 Goldman Sachs sponsor ed a UK/US Urban Educa tion
Confer ence at the Institute . The IOE is also a shar eholder in Educa tion
Digital w hich runs T eachers’ TV, teaches T each First students and has had
collabor ations with CEA. Brunel Uni versity is a co-sponsor with HSBC of a
16–19 Academ y, and the Uni versities of Li verpool and the W est of England
are also Academ y sponsors .
In Netw ork 2 ther e are also cr oss-over actors r epresented – Mik e Tomlinson,
ex-Chief Inspector of Schools , Chair of the Hackney Learning T rust, V ice-
Chair man and sometime Chair of the Ad visory Boar d of GEMS , Elizabeth
Passmor e, ex-Dir ector of Inspection of Ofsted, and Schools’ Adjudica tor,
who was also a member of the GEMS Ad visory Boar d, as ar e Sir Gar eth
Roberts , ex-Vice Chancellor , Dir ector of HEFCE and DfES ad viser, and
Nick Stuart, e x-DfES senior o fficial. Such people bridge betw een pub lic sec-
tor educa tion policy and pri vate schooling and bring their cr edibility and
contacts to bear . Also ther e are various ‘her oes’ of refor m from the pub lic
sector, models of good pr actice of ‘what works’, or tr aders in ‘good ad vice’ –
ex-headteachers Dame Mary Richar dson and Dame Shar on Hallo ws (mem-
ber of the Standar ds Task F orce – see Box 5.3) and serving heads Sir K evin
Satchwell and De xter Hutt. De bor ah Knight, a go vernor of Ha berdashers
Askes CTC, moved to become Dir ector of P olicy at the AST . These mor e
132 New governance, communities, philanthropy
Conclusion
This cha pter and the pr evious one ha ve sought to do a n umber of things: in
part to put a social face to pri vatisation; to popula te the d ynamics of ca pital
and the b lurring of the pub lic/private divide with r eal social actors; also to
illustr ate the comple xity of moti ves, rationales and v alues invested in the
educa tion b usiness and in educa tion partnerships and in ‘service’ to the sta te
which r ange fr om for ms of ‘giving’ to for ms of ‘investment’ and f or ms of
influence; further and importantl y, to demonstr ate the r ole of the educa tion
businesses and the ne w educa tion policy comm unities as ‘policy de vices’, as
means of go vernance , as ne w ways of getting social mana gement and policy
work done and pub lic sector institutions r e-cultur ed. Ne w voices ar e given
space within policy talk, and the spaces of policy ar e diversified and dissoci-
ated. Ne w narr atives about w hat counts as a ‘good’ educa tion ar e articula ted
and v alida ted. (This is ad dressed mor e directly in Cha pter 7.) Ne w linka ge
devices are being cr eated o ver and a gainst e xisting ones , excluding or cir cum-
venting b ut not al ways obliterating mor e traditional sites and v oices. I ha ve
also tried to sho w how the pub lic sector gener ally is worked on and in b y
privatisations of di fferent kinds , from the outside in and the inside out and to
mak e the point tha t new policy discourses articula te enthusiasm f or pri vatisa-
tion fr om positions inside the pub lic sector not just fr om the pri vate sector
itself. Linka ges and alliances ar ound policy concerns and ne w policy narr a-
tives cross betw een the tw o. I ha ve indica ted the w ays in which pri vatisations
rely on the ener gy, experience and social r elations of speci fic social actors
who ha ve had success within the pri vate sector and the w ork done thr ough
and b y private/pub lic partnerships of di fferent kinds and ne w kinds of ‘cr oss-
over’ organisa tions with char acteristics dr awn from both sides of the old
divide. Alto gether, at this point in time , I am ar guing tha t pri vatisation as a
material and discursi ve process is partial and v ery diverse, sometimes falter-
ing but of massi ve and incr easing importance within and o ver and a gainst
pub lic sector educa tion. I ha ve also suggested tha t the w ork of educa tion
businesses and of the ne w policy comm unities is indica tive of new kinds of
state modalities .
6 Selling improvement/selling
policy/selling localities
An econom y of inno vation
Competiti veness depends on de veloping the indi vidual and collecti ve capaci-
ties to enga ge in per manent inno vation – w hether in sour cing, technolo gies,
products , organiza tion or mar keting.
(Jessop 2002: 121)
In this cha pter I ad dress issues of inno vation and change and the in volvement
of the pri vate sector in pub lic sector educa tion in tw o different ways: first, b y
looking a t the ‘impr ovement pr oducts’ w hich ar e mar keted to educa tional
institutions b y educa tion services companies and their r ole in r e-working and
surveilling those institutions; second, and r ather di fferently, by considering
the r ole of educa tion as part of the ‘place mar keting’ of and a ttempt to
establish competiti ve advanta ge within particular ‘entr epreneurial localities’
and the w ays tha t this ‘joins up’ schools to the competiti veness pr oject. Some
of the companies mentioned pr eviously re-appear in these localities as parti-
cipants in ‘place-speci fic development str ategies’ (Parkinson and Har ding
1995: 67). Further aspects of inno vation and change , in the f or m of the
Academies policy , ar e discussed in Cha pter 7.
HBS Educa tion has a mission to support all parties enga ged in r aising
standar ds and tr ansfor ming the w ay we learn . . . Intr oducing a bold
change str ategy to tr ansfor m the w ay we teach and learn in this century ,
requir es new ways of looking a t pr oblems and ho w we solve them . . .
HBS is one of a ne w breed of solution pr oviders in educa tion.
Her e again we have the langua ge and ima gery of d ynamism w hich was noted
in Cha pter 2 as a fea tur e of Ne w Labour pub lic sector policy , tr ansla ted into
action pr ogrammes for schools , liter ally a re-articula tion of school or ganisa -
tion. P art of this is w hat Fullan (2001) calls ‘r eculturing’ – which dr aws its
langua ge and methods fr om b usiness models of change mana gement and
which P arker (2000: 11) sees as a shift fr om b ureaucr acy and its ine fficiencies
to ‘caring about customers , being inno vatory, focusing on quality and so on’.
138 An economy of innovation
What is being sold is the ur gencies of change , a ne w langua ge and a kind of
self-belief and self-e fficacy. This is the r etail end of the ESI. Ther e are man y
small packa ges of work and one-o ff events and consultancies: “ther e’s a
relatively small amount of pr ofit; the mar gins ar e pretty small” (R G).
These companies o ffer ‘solutions’, ‘holistic change’, ‘vision’, ‘customised
change’, ‘values-led a ppr oaches’, ‘creative challenges’ and r epeatedly ‘trans-
for mation’. The langua ge and especiall y the verbs they deplo y convey a sense
of ur gency and speed: they w ork ‘swiftly and e fficiently’ and ar e ‘focused’;
they deli ver ‘streamlining’ and ‘mana geability’. They tr ade in pr ofessional
expertise and trust and w ork in partnership with the pub lic sector client.
‘Edison Schools UK pr ovides school impr ovement services to schools in
Gr eat Britain. The pr ogramme is implemented in partnership with schools ,
and tailor ed to each school’s r equir ements’ (br ochur e). Eduno va ‘is focused
on working with pr actitioners , businesses and others intent on helping bring
about a step change in the educa tional achie vement of students in our
schools and colleges’ (w ebsite). The Place Gr oup assert tha t: ‘For r eal educa -
tion tr ansfor mation to be achie ved, we need to dri ve authority-wide initia -
tives and change mana gement pr ogrammes, working in partnership with
agencies focused on joining-up pub lic services’ (website). This is the dis-
course of the competition sta te at work within pub lic sector or ganisa tions,
modernising and r e-designing or ganisa tional ecolo gies (and the ‘ecolo gies
of learning’), changing w orkplace r elationships and cr eating flexibility and
ada pta bility, making them mor e like those in other pub lic and pri vate sector
organisa tions, mor e like ‘the firm’. In e ffect these pr ogrammes dissemina te
the discourses of r efor m and modernisa tion and w ork to embed them within
institutional cultur es. They pr ovide authorita tive readings and enactments
of policy or ‘r eadings of r eadings’ (Ball 1994). The companies also w ork
in partnerships of change with par asta tal a gencies – LEAs , Ofsted, TD A,
NCSL – to ‘dri ve’ the ‘project of tr ansfor mation’ thr ough ‘corpor ate vision’
(Place Gr oup) and as noted a bove sell their ‘assistance’ and ‘e xpertise’ abroad
– ‘The UK e xperience has serv ed as the under lying model f or m uch of the
development interna tionall y of SBM’ (www.cea.co.uk ). All of this narr ows
and f ocuses b ut does not necessaril y close do wn entir ely the space of inter-
pretation within policy . Nor ar e the ur gency and enthusiasm f or change or
the ‘products’ al ways shar ed by the audiences of impr ovement a t the chalk
face. Nor is inno vation or best pr actice the pr erogative of the pri vate sector ;
ther e are plenty of endo genous inno vators.
These ar e generic discourses w hich a t the or ganisa tional le vel have no
specificity to educa tion or schools . The compan y consultants ar e ‘carriers of
global institutionaliz ed mana gement concepts’ (Hansen and Lairidsen 2004:
515) and these ar e, as indica ted a bove, framed within the imper atives of
inevitability, uncertainty and thr eat. ‘As LEA and school leaders y ou ar e
faced with tr emendous challenges . In a changing w orld full of ne w ideas and
inno vations, we can help y ou de velop tr ansfor mational learning or ganisa -
tions’ (Cocentr a ad vert, TES). The tr ansfor mation discourse imposes ne w
An economy of innovation 139
limits on w hat is recognisable as a ‘good school’ and w hat effectivity is,
leadership is and pr ofessionalism is . ‘All of these mechanisms f or the struc-
turing, constr aining and cir culation of inf or mation [ideas] ha ve a similar
effect: they bring a bout the pr oduction of discourse , but onl y certain types of
discourse’ (Mills 1997: 75).
The r ecent W hite P aper for schools sets out the Go vernment’s vision f or
educa tion, including an ambitious a genda f or high standar ds thr oughout
the whole sector . Tribal’s r ange of school impr ovement services is con-
tinuing to gr ow to meet incr easing demand f or both consultancy and
mana ged services.
(Brochur e)
The br ochur es and w ebsites pr esent the companies as facing both sta te
and schools and as ha ving ready-made or bespok e ‘solutions’ to the pr oblems
of policy – helping schools in ‘r aising achie vement’ and ‘tr ansfor ming’ them-
selves and contrib uting to the r aising of na tional standar ds. Edison’s con-
sultants ar e called ‘Achievement Ad visers’ who o ffer ‘consultancy , coaching
and inno vation, to pr ovide a complete packa ge of services and technolo gies
to assist with r aising achie vement’. This is making oper ant the discourse and
vision of the competition sta te.
Failur e and Ofsted inspections ar e other policy opportunities . The com-
panies ar e firmly imbrica ted in the pr oduction of a grid of visibility (R ose
1996: 55) within schools – making them and those w ho inha bit them accessib le
and audita ble. The sta te acts upon schools thr ough the langua ge of mana ge-
ment and b usiness, among other w ays, to sha pe and utilise their fr eedoms
An economy of innovation 143
thr ough ne w for ms of expertise – b udget disciplines , audits , mana gement
coaching – to gener ate a r egime of critical self-scrutin y. The ‘sciences’ of
numer ation, calcula tion and monitoring w hich ar e embed ded in and legitim-
ate the w ork of these companies w ork to ensur e the ‘responsibility and fidelity
of agents who r emain for mal[ly] autonomous’ (R ose 1996: 55). They construct
new diagrams of f orce and fr eedom linking measur ement to mana gement.
Cocentr a pr ovides: a ‘distincti ve focus on e valua ting the schools’ or ganiza -
tional cultur e’ and ‘an audit pr ocess tha t models best pr actice in school
self-review – primary £1800–2500 and secondary £2800–3500 f or first year of
full audit’ and ‘school self r eview, pr e and post Ofsted ad vice for schools
and LEAs’. HBS o ffers ‘effective self-evalua tion’ and audits of ‘subjects ,
departments and other aspects of pr ovision’ and sells ‘ad vice and support’ to
‘prepar e for Ofsted Inspection’. 3 Edison ha ve ‘Team cultur e measur ement
systems’ (see Box 6.1). CEA ha ve a ‘perfor mance mana gement consultancy’.
All of this dr aws on the ‘disciplines’ of b usiness, mana gement and social
science and contrib utes to the pr oduction of kno wledge about schools and
teachers – exams, tests, audits , appr aisals, inspections , evalua tions, reviews
and perf or mance mana gement. These tactics of measur ement ar e techniques
for the go verning of subjects and the mana gement of the social.
. . . we’re saying tha t tha t we’ve got a coher ent, holistic design w hich is
research based, w hich is going to ha ve a real impact in y our school. But
we’re not a bout selling y ou bits and pieces . We’re not a bout doing a bit of
tr aining and w alking a way. We’re about ha ving a thr ee-year contr act with
you and putting a team of thr ee advisers with a mix of e xpertise working
with you on a w eekly basis . . . tha t means it’s costing a lot mor e than
they’re used to spending . . . typicall y a primary school might be pa ying
£20,000 a year and a secondary school could be spending an ywhere
between £50,000 and £75,000 a y ear.
(PL)
. . . we had quite an inter esting time with the DfES and London Challenge
over Battersea and w e’re quite pleased with the w ay tha t’s gone. We set
up an impr ovement partnership betw een Battersea and tw o other schools
and got them out of special measur es and no w the partnership is actuall y
really very, very inter esting indeed as a w ay forward. And w e set it up in, I
mean the principle behind it w as tha t we weren’t putting jump leads on
Battersea b ut tha t we were setting it up in a w ay in which all thr ee schools
would be a ble to learn fr om the e xperience of w orking to gether. And
tha t’s worked surprisingl y well.
(PDg)
The DfES facilita tes ‘excellence clusters’ which pair LEAs to ena ble ‘self
and peer’ r eview. This is not a system, not a single net of po wer, but a
‘proliferation of little r egulatory instances’ (R ose 1996: 61).
An economy of innovation 145
The discourse(s) of impr ovement and tr ansfor mation pr ovide new systems
of meaning f or school or ganisa tion and a ne w narr ative for schools , tha t is
new ways of expressing themselv es to themselv es and to others , new ways of
constructing plausib le perfor mances and to be tak en seriousl y and to be seen
as succeeding. The impr ovement and ‘turnar ound’ packa ges constitute a
methodolo gy for schools to ‘think’ a bout themselv es differently and w ork
on themselv es. They can learn to ‘sa y’ themselves in ways tha t ar e recognis-
able and ‘sensib le’ to evalua tors , ‘clients’ and ‘customers’. Schools ar e thus
reconstituted as generic or isomorphic or ganisa tions w hich ‘fit’ with (in a
variety of w ays) and can be ‘joined up’ to other services and to b usiness. In
this sense they ar e made a meaningful part of the kno wledge econom y (see
Cha pter 7 on Academies). Ho wever, as the ter m suggests, ther e is an interface
here, an e xchange w hich is not onl y one-way. Business is also learning ne w
ways to speak to and within educa tion, to talk a bout itself and its pr oducts in
ways tha t ar e meaningful to schools and to policy (see pa ges 155–6 on Fujitsu).
Within the discourse of impr ovement ther e is a set of other sub-te xts or
specificities – mana gement and leadership , ‘learning’ and inclusion, among
others – which a gain dr aw upon and acti vate the le xicons of policy , giving
force to semantics . Keywords ar e brought into a tight and seamless r elation-
ship of possibilities and perfections f or which schools should stri ve; ‘we help
LEAs and schools to deli ver local and na tional str ategies, whilst planning
for the futur e and embr acing change’ (HBS) – schools can become a t the
same time impr oved, creative, mana geable, inclusive, learner-centr ed and fed-
erated. Her e is a multiplicity of discursi ve fragments with di fferent histories ,
connota tions and e ffects out of w hich ‘modernisa tion’ and ‘r ecalibr ation’ ar e
constituted. The discourse is all-embr acing and unencumber ed with tensions
and incompa tibilities: ‘our solutions and services ar e designed to help those
responsib le for educa tion and tr aining to impr ove learner services and
mana gement contr ol’ (Tribal). Edison will ‘f oster mana geability and cr eativity
in all aspects of school life’; change is ‘holistic’ and r ests upon ‘maximising
Leadership ca pacity’ (Edison) – in the impr oved school almost an ything is
possib le.
Inclusion is mar ginally present. Pr ospects ‘delivers Ofsted tr aining co ver-
ing key topics such as “Ho w inclusive is your school?” ’, and indeed Cocentr a
brings the tw o to gether to o ffer an a ppr oach w hich ‘helps r econcile the ten-
sions tha t exist betw een the standar ds agenda and the dri ve for inclusion’ – an
unusuall y straightf orward recognition tha t not all of the elements of the
discourse of tr ansfor mation fit seamlessly together.
Some companies also see the pr essures of policy and of contin uous change
as another mar ket opportunity – Icp (Pr ospects) o ffers ‘Stress Mana gement’
tr aining and ‘moti vational and w ell-being’ programmes – ‘You can do it!’
Courses on emotional liter acy ar e available.
This was about childr en’s behaviour, it was about childr en having a sense
of worth and esteem and v alue, and none of tha t would ha ppen unless
146 An economy of innovation
you could get this right. And emotional liter acy gave us an opportunity
of having a soft measur ement ar ound this , which would dri ve everything
else. And I had an uphill ba ttle with the DfES a bout it, b ut in the end
they accepted it.
(BH)
The a ppeal to an emotional r egister is, as Hartley (1999: 317) suggests , part
of the ‘r e-enchantment’ of the school w orkplace, for teachers and students ,
and a r ecognition tha t the ‘turb ulence, ambiguities and ambi valences which
frame and su ffuse schools . . . cannot be dealt with b y mere appeals to
hierarchy and authority’.
The pri vate sector ar e the ne w experts in school or ganisa tion, with e xpertise
to sell (although as w e have seen much of this e xpertise actuall y comes from
the pub lic sector), v alida ted b y the truths of r esearch and tested in the cru-
cible of pr actice, in the f or m of a ne w science of impr ovement. W ithin their
brochur es, websites and intervie ws is a plausib le and systema tic discourse
which works to modify the institutional ma teriality of schools and within
which schooling can be r e-narr ated as a post-modern enterprise . Ho wever, it
is important to r eiterate tha t ‘The a ppar ently finished discourse is in fact a
dense r econstruction of all the bits of other discourses fr om which it w as
made’ (McGee 1990: 278). It is a composite of rhetorics , claims, allusions ,
promises, and jar gon borr owed from b usiness, educa tional r esearch and polit-
ical and policy ideas . The po wer and meaning of the discourse ar e accounted
for b y the fears and desir es of the audience w hich ar e ‘called up’ from policy.
It is a sa viour discourse tha t pr omises to sa ve schools, leaders and teachers
and students fr om failur e, from the terr ors of uncertainty , from the confu-
sions of policy and fr om themselv es – their w eaknesses. All of this mak es it
extremely difficult to r esist its claims. It pr esupposes and r ecycles a set of
imper atives about the ur gency and necessity of change w hich in a v ariety of
subtle and not-so-subtle w ays ties educa tional pr actices to the needs of the
econom y and competiti veness. The te xts and pr actices of school impr ove-
ment onl y really mak e sense and tak e on their mor e general significance in
these ter ms.
Undoubtedl y some things change f or the better in all of this . Some schools
do become better places to learn, mor e inclusive, thoughtfull y inno vative,
relevantl y and authenticall y creative and healthil y reflexive. Impr ovement is
not simpl y a rhetorical flourish or ideolo gical fiction (R ose 1996: 61). If I can
par aphr ase Rose her e, I am not making an y simple judgements a bout these
new programmes of impr ovement and tr ansfor mation b ut r ather I am seek-
ing to disturb the political lo gics within w hich they ar e set and interr ogate the
discourse of impr ovement and begin to understand some of the w ork it does
on schools .
An economy of innovation 147
Education, transformation and entrepreneurial localities
No w I want to tak e up some di fferent aspects of inno vation and tr ansfor m-
ation, although la tter ly some very ma terial r ealisations of the impr ovement
discourse ar e appar ent, and e xplor e some di fferent kinds and scales of pri vate
sector in volvement in pub lic sector educa tion. I will also r eturn to se veral
aspects of the anal ysis of pri vatisation so far .
One simple point tha t needs to be r epeated is tha t pri vatisation initia tives
are unevenly spread or to put it another w ay are concentr ated in particular
localities – inno vation hot spots . This is part of a r e-scaling of policy in volving
dena tionalisa tion, r egional v aria tion and e xperimenta tion 5 and sta te support
for and sponsorship of speci fic inno vative capacities. Jessop (2002: 129) tak es
this to be centr al to the economic pr oject of the Schumpeterian sta te, the
‘refocusing of economic str ategies ar ound the fea tur es of specific economic
spaces’. A second issue is the w ay in which for ms of educa tional pri vatisation
‘join up’ with other educa tional de velopments and with local r egeneration
schemes and economic and b usiness de velopment pr ogrammes as pr oacti ve
strategies to achie ve dynamic and sustaina ble competiti ve advanta ge. This
picks up fr om Cha pter 4 the issue of go vernance . Again the point is tha t
privatisation is m ulti-faceted, and pri vate involvements in local educa tional
initia tives inter-penetr ate with other a gendas and other sorts of economic and
political r elationships . What we see is an often be wildering combina tion of
policy levers and mechanisms – b usiness, mar kets, agencies, trusts , partner-
ships, philanthr opy, infor mal netw orks, ‘local her oes’ and other f or ms of
coor dina tion and colla bor ation – w hich ar e mobilised into ‘local gr owth
alliances’ (Hub bar d and Hall 1998: 3) and conceptuall y reorient (b ut do not
totall y displace) the ‘discr edited’ and ‘out-moded’ political-b ureaucr atic local
state (see for example McF adyean and R owland 2002 and Ne wcastle City
Council T rade Unions 2002). The local sta te ‘is both a pr oduct and a gent of
regulation’ her e (Hub bar d and Hall 1998: 17). Some ‘or dinary cities’ 6 (Amin
and Gr aham 1997) ar e re-imaged and r e-imagined as ‘entr epreneurial local-
ities’ drawing on ‘place m yths’ and a ‘ “new combina tion” of economic and/
or extr a-economic factors’ (J essop 1997: 31) including educa tion. Others
simply remain or dinary. This is a ne w kind of ‘specula tive’ governance
(Jewson and Macgr egor 1997: 8), the construction of ne w urban r egimes
which ha ve ‘the po wer to act’ and thr ough v arious economic, political and
social inno vations seek to ad dress the de velopment of structur al com-
petiti veness. This in volves, as signalled in Cha pter 4, b ut this time a t the local
level, the legitima tion of ne w policy actors and v oices, and these ne w actors
are often both the f ocus of local or r egional netw ork relations and sometimes
participants in na tional policy netw orks. The local str ategies and stances of
growth and boosterism bring to gether ‘pr operty inter ests, rentiers, utility
groups , uni versities, business groups , tr ade unions and local media’ (Hub bar d
and Hall 1998: 9) and ha ve appeal to local go vernments of di fferent political
persuasions . All of the localities pr esented belo w are Labour contr olled.
148 An economy of innovation
In these entr epreneurial localities , educa tion is dr awn into a speci fic rela-
tionship to the economic and to entr epreneurism and competiti veness as part
of urban r egeneration and local la bour mar ket str ategies and as part of the
mar keting of place (see pa ge 149). Educa tion is made part of narr atives of
local failur e and r ecovery. The narr ative of enterprise and entr epreneurism
is appar ent and r elevant in a n umber of w ays, for example the setting up
of Academies; the r ole of Academies and other initia tives in the teaching
and pr omotion of enterprise in schools (see Cha pter 7); the f ostering of
technolo gical inno vations in schools; the links betw een schooling and local
economic r egeneration; and the r ole of local entr epreneurs and companies in
the tr ansfor mation and r e-culturing of schools .
Within all this , schools ar e drawn into di fferent policy netw orks oper ating
on di fferent scales – both local and distant – ‘multi-level governance’ (J essop
2004: 6). Academies , as we shall see, ar e embed ded in local partnerships with
sponsors and other b usiness inter ests; in some cases (UL T, Vardy, Oasis) they
are part of ‘virtual’ feder ations run b y sponsors , or local feder ations of
schools, or combina tions of these (Educa tion Action Zones). They also ha ve
dependence on and r esponsibilities to the centr e (DfES Academies di vision,
Ofsted, ASST). Some specialist schools also ha ve ongoing r elationships with
other schools via their sponsors (HSBC sponsors 100 schools , Alec R eed 27
schools and Thomas T elford CT C 63 – see Cha pter 7). This is a ne w but fluid
socio-spa tial fix for school go vernance .
In this w ay educa tion is made part of w hat is called ‘new localism’, another
New Labour condensa te which pr omises ‘cost-e ffective pub lic services . . .
equity . . . and gr eater choice’ and to ad dress the ‘pr essing ur gency to r everse
the long-ter m disenga gement of people fr om tr aditional politics’ not b y
‘greater centr alisation – they will onl y come fr om decentr alisation and
devolution of po wer’ (Haz el Blears, MP f or Salf ord and Minister of Sta te at
the Home O ffice, Foreword to the NL GN pub lication New Localism in
Action, 2004: 8).
Lastl y, the cases pr esented belo w are exemplars in another sense . They ar e
working a t the leading edge of ne w policy de velopments . They ar e ‘Path-
finders’, test-beds f or ne w policy ideas , willing inno vators , acti ve dissemin-
ators of ‘good pr actice’ and ‘what works’, ‘centres of excellence’ and e ffective
in bid ding for ne w initia tives, often pick ed out f or pr aise by government
ministers and a gencies. In this w ay they ar e an acti ve facet of the e xperi-
mental sta te; they ar e the r ecipients of ‘tar geted’ initia tives; they ar e ‘beacons’
but also sometimes failur es. The important point is tha t ‘entr epreneurial
localities’ have ‘institutional and or ganisa tional fea tur es tha t can sustain a
flow of inno vations, what is involved her e is a spa tialised comple x of institu-
tions, nor ms, conventions , networks, organisa tions, procedur es and modes of
economic and social calcula tion tha t encour age entr epreneurship’ (J essop
2002: 189).
I identify belo w thr ee ‘entrepreneurial localities’ within w hich educa -
tion is a component of the spa tialised comple x of social and economic
An economy of innovation 149
regeneration – Sand well, Blackb urn with Darw en, and Mid dlesbr ough – b ut
the exemplars will be necessaril y super ficial. I will sketch in some of the w ays
in which these councils ar e engaged in ‘place mar keting’, re-imagineering
themselv es as ‘new types of place or space f or living, working’ (Jessop 2002:
188) and highl y ‘proacti ve in pr omoting the competiti veness of their r espect-
ive economic spaces’ (J essop 2002: 124). These localities ar e by no means
unique b ut they ar e not necessaril y typical. They ar e par adigm cases of inter-
urban competiti veness in which educa tion has a signi ficant r ole in their ‘space
economies’. They ma y also be ‘politicall y favour ed’ localities.
Sandwell
Sand well is in the West Midlands , and the Bor ough Council is ‘T ransfor ming
Sand well’. In place-mar keting langua ge, ‘The bor ough is on a journey of
tr ansfor mation with our destina tion – as set out in the 2020 vision of the
Sand well Plan – “a thri ving, sustaina ble, optimistic and f orward-looking
comm unity” in w hich ph ysical, social and economic conditions ha ve been
radicall y impr oved and r emodelled’ (all quota tions fr om the SMBC w ebsite).
Sand well will be ‘better, smarter , healthier , stronger and safer’. The journey
is ‘powered’ by a regeneration compan y (RegenCo – the ‘ first in the W est
Midlands’, in w hich the Council is a partner with English P artnerships and
Advanta ge West Midlands), a housing mar ket renewal Path finder ar ea and a
New Deal f or Comm unities ar ea – Gr eets Gr een.
Of str ategic significance our k ey relationships with Sand well MBC and
Sand well Partnership ha ve ensur ed tha t NDC policies ar e written into
Borough-wide policies . This has ena bled us to de velop a housing str ategy
tha t will out li ve the NDC pr ogramme, influence futur e planning of W est
Bromwich to wn centr e and ha ve a major impact on emplo yment in
Gr eets Gr een. We are also working with Sand well College to ensur e tha t
their plans fit with the educa tional needs and aspir ations of Gr eets
Gr een.
(Ally Allerson, Ex ecutive Dir ector of Gr eets
Gr een Partnership , ODPM w ebsite)
In 2000 Sand well LEA r eceived interim mana gement support fr om Nor d
Anglia in a nine-month contr act. P art of the Sand well journey in volves
“investing in our y oung people” – five primary schools ha ve been r ebuilt
by Total Schools (V inci/Norw est Holst/P ell Frischmann/In vestec) in a
£17 million PFI scheme (in w hich PW C acted as the Bor ough’s ad viser)
and tw o CL Cs ar e open as part of the EiC initia tive, one specialising in
music and digital video and the other langua ge and comm unica tion, art and
design and digital media. T est perf or mance has been ‘boosted b y a pioneering
£4 million “T eacher of the Futur e” pr ogramme, aimed a t tr ansfor ming
teaching and learning . . . in partnership is the Uni versity of Wolverhampton’.
150 An economy of innovation
The langua ge here represents the themes of change , recovery, inno vation,
re-design, ener gy and integr ation harnessed to achie ve social and economic
regeneration. A £300 million in vestment via the go vernment’s Building
Schools for the Futur e programme is set to r ebuild or r efurbish all the
Borough’s r emaining secondary schools , ‘equipping them f or 21st century
learning’.
In a speech in 2002, T ony Blair pick ed out one Sand well school for special
praise:
Jubilant schools and educa tion chiefs in Sand well are welcoming a Min-
isterial decision to gi ve the go ahead to further de velopment of plans f or
a sta te-of-the-art Design and Enterprise Academ y to be b uilt on the
Dartmouth High School site in Gr eat Barr . The Minister’s decision f ol-
lows proposals fr om industrial sponsor , Eric P ayne OBE and his wife ,
Gr ace, who were both educa ted in West Bromwich bef ore moving to
North W ales when the famil y business r elocated. The Academ y, which
will have a sho wcase centr e for young designers , will develop a high
profile in the cr eative arts. Sponsor Mr P ayne said: “F amilies deserv e the
best possib le schools for their childr en and w e have a lot of har d work to
do to ensur e tha t the students get the best deal possib le and achie ve high
standar ds. Over the coming months I look f orward to the opportunity
for dialo gue with par ents, sta ff and the comm unity as w e forge ahead
with b uilding a ‘world bea ter’ Academ y. The Academ y will be a major
player in the r egeneration of Sand well and w e expect to tak e our place
alongside other local partners in b uilding a positi ve futur e for the bor -
ough.” The Academ y also has the backing of the Uni versity of Wolver-
hampton, w hich has a greed to become its lead educa tion partner and
work with the sponsors . Professor Sir Geo ff Hampton – Dean of the
School of Educa tion and Dir ector of the Midlands Leadership Centr e at
the uni versity – said: “The Uni versity oper ates on a w orldwide basis. We
are working with schools in China and Mala ysia to de velop tomorr ow’s
generation of ‘smart’ schools .”
(http://www .laws.sand well.gov.uk/ccm/sand well/news/)
Sand well’s third pr oposed health and citiz enship Academ y on the site of
Willingsworth High School has been clear ed to mo ve to the feasibility sta ge
and is planned to open in the autumn of 2008. This Academ y is to be spon-
sored by the RSA. It is a good e xample of the w ays educa tion is joined up
with r egeneration and competition str ategies involving di verse agencies and
partners .
The Academ y already has str ong local support fr om the Council, the
Primary Car e Trust and the Uni versity of Wolverhampton – the lead
educa tion partner . The pr oposed £20 million sta te-of-the-art Academ y
will have man y inno vative featur es, such as a local health ‘one stop shop’,
a fire safety centr e and comm unity access facilities . The Academ y will
cater for 900 students a ged 11–16 and will ha ve a sixth f or m of 200.
It will also pr ovide skills tr aining and de velopment f or local people ,
and will ha ve the potential to o ffer specialist v ocational pr ogrammes
for health and car e professionals . Academ y proposals ar e also being
152 An economy of innovation
consider ed for con verting Geor ge Salter High, W est Bromwich, and
Shireland Langua ge College, Smethwick.
(http://www .laws.sand well.gov.uk/ccm/content/
councilgener al/pr essreleases/pr essreleasesmar2006/
new-step-forward-for-academ y.en)
Sand well also r eceived funding f or tw o Educa tion Action Zones (W ednes-
bury and Blackhea th and R owley). It has an Educa tion Business P artnership ,
‘the principal a gency for br okering educa tion b usiness links acr oss Sand well’
(pdpdir ect.co.uk) and is part of Black Country Educa tion Business Links
(info@blackcountry ebl.co.uk). Other things w e might note her e are tha t: both
Sand well and Darw en (see pa ge 153) are among nine P ath finder ar eas for a
£1.2 billion housing demolition pr ogramme; 7 Sand well with Bir mingham
made a £62 million bid f or mar ket renewal funding; Sand well ‘is now working
with CABE and English P artnerships on a housing ga p funding mechanism’
(Market Renewal: Birmingham Sandwell Pathfinder, Audit Commission Scru-
tiny Report, J une 2004); and in 2004 Sand well agreed a £300,000 contr act with
Capita to r eview the authority’s centr al support services – ‘Unison belie ves
Capita will simpl y recommend mor e services being outsour ced to the pri vate
sector’ (r eport in Birmingham Evening Mail, 18 June 2004).
Middlesbrough
Mid dlesbr ough is in the north-east of England and has a high-pr ofile,
Independent elected Ma yor, Ray Mallon. Accor ding to the Council w ebsite,
Mid dlesbr ough is ‘mo ving forward’ and the Council ‘is Open f or Business’.
Again, in an e ffort to assert a unique identity and str ess compar ative advan-
tages, the Council sa ys: ‘Our role is to mak e the ar ea as b usiness friendl y as
possib le’ and ‘to help local people to meet the needs of local emplo yers,
suppl ying a workforce tha t meets changing b usiness needs . . . We are specif-
ically task ed with r evitalising the to wn econom y, helping to cr eate wealth
for local b usinesses.’ As part of this , Mid dlesbr ough o ffers ‘superb tr aining
and educa tion. The Uni versity of T eesside . . . is developing a leading-edge
reputa tion in digital technolo gies. Further educa tion colleges shar e a local
commitment to de veloping tr aining and enterprise .’ There is an ‘Enterprise
Academ y’, a project which ‘helps 11–19 y ear olds acr oss the T ees Valley to
learn a bout the w orld of b usiness and self emplo yment’.
In 2001 Mid dlesbr ough BC enter ed into a ten-y ear, £260 million PPP
with HBS to pr ovide front-line and back o ffice services via a ne w ‘one-
stop’ customer service centr e. One thousand sta ff were transferr ed to HBS
and up to 500 ne w jobs were anticipa ted. The Centr e for Pub lic Services
(2003) describes Mid dlesbr ough as ‘Contr act Ca pital of the W orld’. In 2005
the Audit Commission announced tha t Mid dlesbr ough Council had been
rated as an ‘e xcellent’ local authority under the CP A framework (http://
www.mid dlesbr ough.go v.uk/ccm/content/ne ws/middlesbr ough-council-pr ess-
releases/compr ehensive-perfor mance-assessment-gi ves-excellent-r esult.en ).
Mid dlesbr ough LEA ‘embr aced the Go vernment’s City academies initia -
tive’ (‘Provision of Secondary Educa tion in South Mid dlesbr ough’, LEA
document) and is home to thr ee Academies , one of w hich, the Macmillan
(sponsor ed by the Macmillan T rust), a Beacon and Leading Edge school,
is transferring fr om an esta blished City T echnolo gy College sta tus. The
first ne w Academ y, opened in 2002, has been r eferred to a bove, the Unity
An economy of innovation 155
Academ y (see page 70), and is sponsor ed by construction and mana gement
firm Amey plc, w hich is very acti ve in the PFI mar ket (see pa ge 49).
The Chief Ex ecutive of Amey said this w as Amey’s “opportunity to con-
trib ute to inno vation and leadership in learning – and a str ong commitment
to supporting pub lic services in Mid dlesbr ough and the North East” (NUT
website). The Academ y, either the b uilding or online , was planned to open 24/
7, 365 days a year, and has comm unity facilities including a learning r esour ce
centr e with an Internet café. The curriculum is w ork-focused, with str ong
links to b usiness. The a vant-gar de building w as designed b y Hickton Madeley
& Partners and b uilt b y M J Gleeson (a PFI specialist) and includes internal
balconies ‘modelled on a T uscan mountain villa ge’. It has been criticised.
Ofsted commented tha t ‘while impr essive at first sight . . . some students do
not feel safe or secur e. The la yout of corridors is confusing’ (quoted in Guard-
ian, 20 Mar ch 2006) (and see ‘Sunder land Building Schools f or the Futur e:
stak eholders visits to schools’, Sunder land City Council, 2005). Fujitsu is
providing a mana ged IT C service for the school under a 15-y ear contr act and
is responsib le for ‘identifying needs , providing technical support, mana ging
refreshing and de veloping inno vation’. An account of the school and its
relationships with Fujitsu, on the Fujitsu w ebsite (www.fujitsu.com/uk/
casestudies/fs_unity .htm – see Box 6.2), captur es man y of the essential
featur es of the Academ y strategy and v arious w ays in which educa tionall y
and substanti vely schools ar e enveloped within narr atives of competition,
business and enterprise w hich r eorient the rh ythms and te xtur e of school
life. The linking of learning to ne w technolo gy and to pr epar ation f or work
is also very evident her e. Ne w for ms of inno vative peda gogy are envisioned
using ne w technolo gies and ne w architectur e to tr ansfor m ‘learning en viron-
ments’ b ut also as ‘pr oducts’ w hich can be sold in colla bor ation with the IT C
partner in the educa tion mar ketplace. Educa tion is r epresented her e in a
new kind of langua ge but ma y not be e xperienced as ne w. Unity is also ,
as noted a bove, a ‘failur e’ of sorts. It failed its Ofsted inspection in 2005
(http://www .ofsted.go v.uk/r eports/manr eports/2661.pdf ) and identi fied a
£500,000 year-on-y ear b udget de ficit (http://educa tion.guar dian.co .uk/
ofsted/story/0,,1485081,00.html ). Experimenta tion begets some failur es but
they ar e relatively unimportant politicall y within a mor e general str ategy of
tr ansfor mation.
The thir d Academ y, the King’s Academ y, has a b usiness and enterprise
specialism and is sponsor ed by the Vardy Founda tion, the personal charit-
able founda tion of Sir P eter Vardy, owner of the R eg Vardy car dealership
and a de vout Christian ( http://www .dir ector-ma gazine.co.uk/December05/
vardy.html ; http://wiki.cotch.net/inde x.php/Emman uel_Schools_F ounda tion ;
An economy of innovation 157
http://www .angel fire.com/nb/lt/docs/called43.htm ). Vardy has o ffered to
sponsor six Academies in the North-East and so far thr ee are open or
planned. These Academies ha ve proba bly attr acted mor e pub lic and pr ess
attention than an y others b ut for their r eligious values r ather than their
inno vative appr oaches to teaching and learning.
Mid dlesbr ough w as also a warded EAZ funding in the first r ound, and 22
Teesside schools ha ve specialist school sta tus.
Discussion
Educa tion within these ‘entr epreneurial localities’ and ‘economic spaces’
can be thought a bout in the same ter ms tha t Jessop uses to char acterise
the econom y: ‘an ima ginatively narr ated system tha t is accor ded speci fic
boundaries , conditions of e xistence, typical economic a gents, tendencies and
counter-tendencies , and a distincti ve overall dynamic’ (Jessop 2002: 7).
Ima ginative narr ation is v ery evident (see Bo x 6.2). Within the pr ocesses of
modernisa tion and tr ansfor mation the boundaries and spa tial horizons and
flows of influence and enga gement ar ound educa tion ar e being str etched and
reconfigured in a w hole variety of w ays – the time and space of educa tion
and the school ar e changed, thr ough e xtended da ys, distance and ‘virtual’
learning, technolo gy transfer, local and na tional f ora, netw orks, partnerships
and feder ations. This ena bles a fostering of ‘collecti ve intelligence’ to service
the na tional competiti ve inter est but also in volves competing f or ad vanta ge
with other localities and other institutions . Learning no w has no limits in time
and space; w e are all life-long learners , but ne w sorts of learning outcomes ,
particular ly those r elated to b usiness and enterprise and to ne w technolo gies,
are ‘asymmetricall y privileged’ within the r efor m pr ocess and local hegem-
onies. Ther e is an emphasis on the ‘digital econom y’ and inf or mation and
comm unica tion technolo gies and f or ms of ‘imma terial la bour’ (Har dt and
Negri 2000). Cr eativity, enterprise and entr epreneurism ar e given priority as
new educa tional specialisms and technolo gical inno vations ar e foregrounded
(see also Cha pter 7). As bela bour ed above, the designa tion of pub lic and
private is also shifted on a n umber of dimensions and tasks ar e re-alloca ted.
The pri vate is ‘in’ the schools and in school go vernance . Educa tion is ‘in’
business and in the comm unity and joined up with other services as part of
strategies of local r egeneration link ed closely with local b usiness needs and
local competiti veness, new local ‘social fixes’ (Jessop 2004: 6). The ‘economic
spher e’ is redefined to incorpor ate educa tion in a v ariety of w ays. This is
achieved thr ough a discourse of de volution, decentr alisation and autonom y –
new localism. The conditions of e xistence of educa tion ar e also r e-set in
ter ms of the ne w disciplines and demands of competiti veness, inno vation and
the kno wledge econom y, to gether with an inclusi ve conception of educa bility
and learning – ‘autonom y is being exercised in the conte xt of the hegemon y
of the kno wledge-based accum ulation str ategy’ (Jessop 2002: 167) and this is
both coer cive and empo wering. The ne w economic a gents of educa tion r ange
158 An economy of innovation
from consumer par ents, self-organising learners acquiring the flexible skills
requir ed in the changing or ima gined local econom y, entr epreneurial teachers
and mana gers selling their curricular inno vations to others , and pri vate
providers eking out pr ofits from running or pr oviding support services f or
state schools or pr oviding educa tional services f or young people . Local her oes
of enterprise (see also Cha pters 5 and 7) ar e making philanthr opic contrib u-
tions, ‘giving back’ to ‘their’ locality , but they also stand f or and speak f or the
discourse of entr epreneurism – they ar e new Victorians! Ne w techniques of
governing ar e inscribed in these visions of educa tion and its futur e (Dean
1999). These entr epreneurial spaces ar e material settings in w hich di fferent
multi-scalar in fluences come to gether in tangled hier archies and f or di verse
ends and purposes . Ne w actors , social pa tterns , relationships and f or ms
of or ganisa tion and comm unica tion ar e being esta blished. Ne w voices ar e
hear d and others mar ginalised. The e xisting tendencies within the system,
as portr ayed within policy te xts, ar e to under-achie vement, failur e and
low standar ds, and the counter-tendencies ar e excellence, impr ovement and
rising standar ds. The distincti ve overall dynamic is tr ansfor mation, a change
of educa tional f or m and an ea ger responsi veness to the demands of com-
petiti veness. Change – contin uous inno vation – is the ne w nor mal, and
adaptability, flexibility and activation are strategic policy concepts . A set of
Schumpeterian political, economic and social narr atives coalesce her e which
give meaning to a set of ‘past failur es and futur e possibilities’ (Jessop 2002:
92) and constitute ‘ne w economic ima ginaries’ (Jessop 2004: 4) and ne w
modes of r egulation within these distr essed localities. The telos of educa tion
(Dean 1999) becomes tha t of an uncertain social and economic futur e. These
new for ms of go verning and the local economies of inno vation become
means of r eaching or r esponding to this futur e and the thr eat of economic
uncompetiti veness. This is a f or m of go verning in the name of uncertainty
and of competition.
7 Policy controversies
Failur es, ethics and e xperiments
In this cha pter, as a complement to the f ocus in Cha pters 4 and 5 on educa -
tion b usinesses, attention is dir ected to the in volvement of b usiness ‘out-
siders’ in educa tion services of v arious kinds – J arvis and WS Atkins in
particular and Academies sponsors in gener al. Companies lik e Jarvis and
Atkins come fr om the ‘har d’ end of the ESI and thr ough e xpansion and
horizontal integr ation shifted fr om construction and engineering into man-
aged services and thence ha ve sought or been encour aged to enter the ‘soft’
services end of the mar ket. Other companies lik e VTES ha ve made this mo ve
mor e successfully perha ps because their substanti ve business and e xpansion
tr ajectory has a co gnate relation to the educa tional services w ork they ha ve
tak en on. In the final section of the cha pter (‘Academies’, pa ge 170) other
educa tional ‘outsiders’ w ho ar e now agents of policy (see Cha pter 5) thr ough
the Academies pr ogramme in particular will be discussed. As a v ehicle for the
discussion I f ocus on thr ee specific privatisation policies of v ery different
kinds w hich ha ve given rise to con flicts and contr oversies over the in volve-
ment of the pri vate sector in the deli very of pub lic education services . They
are: PFIs , the running and mana gement of LEAs thr ough contr acts with
private pr oviders, and the Academies pr ogramme.
In r elation to PFIs , the main issues ar e profit and r esponsibility and mar ket
failur e. Jarvis plc pr ovides a case stud y. In r elation to LEA contr acts, profit
and r esponsibility ar e issues again, and Atkins’s in volvement with Southw ark
LEA is the main case in point. Mor e generally these examples under line the
importance of r ecognising the di versity among pri vate sector educa tion ser-
vice suppliers , the str ategic beha viour of the companies in volved and the need
to a ttend to the br oader financial conte xt and longer-ter m business pr ospects
which r elate to speci fic privatisations. The ad hoc and e xperimental na tur e of
these pri vatisation policies is a gain evident.
The discussion of the Academies pr ogramme brings to gether man y of the
main themes and issues identi fied in the r est of the book. Mor e specifically it
160 Policy controversies
will be used to ena ble a further e xamina tion of e xperimenta tion and inno v-
ation as k ey aspects of and goals of educa tion r efor m and as the bases of ne w
langua ge and pr actices – a systema ticity – in ter ms of which the pub lic sector
is being r efor med. The Academies pr ogramme is a condensate of sta te
competition policy with all its tensions and contr adictions r epresented in
microcosm. Centr al to the pr ogramme is a concern with ‘mobilizing social as
well as economic sour ces of flexibility and entr epreneurism’ (J essop 2001:
295–6). The Academies pr ogramme is made up of a comple x of policy
impulses and in fluences and e xemplifies some of the ne w kinds of ‘pri vate’
participa tion within policy ad dressed in Cha pter 5. This participa tion is
illustr ated b y examples of some ‘her oes of enterprise’.
PFIs
‘According to the T reasury, PFI tr ansactions with a total ca pital v alue of
£35.5bn ha ve been signed since A pril 2003’ (Unison 2004). PFI schemes , as
outlined in Cha pter 3, ha ve produced a m uch needed injection of cash into
the pub lic sector ca pital b uilding pr ogramme and ha ve the dual a ttr action to
government of deli vering ne w infrastructur e appar ently risk-fr ee and ‘o ff the
books’ of go vernment de bt. Tha t in itself r aises inter esting questions a bout
the ethics of sta te accounting during a period w hen the pri vate sector, espe-
cially in the US , but also to a lesser e xtent in the UK, has been beset with
accounting scandals .
Ho wever, the v arious inter ested parties in the field of go vernment account-
ing seem to ha ve agreed to disa gree about the e fficacy and integrity of the
government’s position on PFIs . The Treasury on the w hole seems to tak e a
much r osier view of PFIs than the N AO (http://www .nao .org.uk ), local
authorities , unions , ACCA, ASB (Sir Da vid Tweedie), PAC or the House of
Commons Select Committee on Educa tion and Skills , but the technical
debates involved her e obscur e some mor e basic political issues . Ironicall y in
2000 Arthur Andersen (w hich had been banned fr om pub lic sector work by
the Conserv atives for their complicity in the DeLor ean scandal b ut r einsta ted
by Labour in 1997 – see Cohen 2004) w as commissioned to mak e a report on
the PFI pr ogramme and w as enthusiastic a bout its ad vanta ges and claimed to
have found an a verage 17 per cent sa ving for the taxpa yer. In 2001 Mott
MacDonald, w hich has a v ariety of in volvements in PFI w orks, was commis-
sioned b y the Treasury to write a r eport comparing costs and o ver-runs
between PFI and pub lic works pr ojects (Review of Large Public Procurement
in the UK, June 2002), which found PFIs to be superior (see Unison 2005 f or a
critique of the stud y). The whole set of issues ar ound cost, risk tr ansfer,
financial tr anspar ency and pr ofit-taking fr om PFIs is beset b y confusion.
Unison ar gues tha t ‘systema tic examina tion of the r ationale f or and costs of
PFI policy ar e long o verdue’ (2004: 37) and the Pub lic Accounts Committee
has twice noted its concern o ver the paucity of da ta on the r elationship
between risk and the cost of pri vate finance. The IPPR (2000: 43) mak e the
Policy controversies 161
point tha t ‘A lar ge number of PFI pr ojects ha ve been a greed, yet ho w these
decisions w ere made and w hat effects they ha ve on services o ffered ar e
unclear .’
Two other aspects of PFI financing need noting her e. These ha ve been
written a bout e xtensively by others and they ar e also the r eason w hy the
Investors Chronicle described PFI shar eholdings as ‘hid den gems’. First,
refinancing of completed pr ojects often gener ates substantial windfall pr ofits
(see Box 7.1).
Second, as noted in Cha pter 3, ther e is now a very acti ve and lucr ative mar ket
in the ‘selling on’ of PFI contr acts.
. . . the go vernment has al ways been very clear with PFI tha t they w ould
never seek to shar e the gains in disposals of equity in PFI pr ojects.
(David Metter , Chair of the PPPF , BBC File on 4, July 2004)
The position her e is tha t the lur e of pr ofit works to ensur e cost-efficient,
low-risk, timel y project deli very. As quoted in Cha pter 1, Gor don Br own
sees the pri vate sector gener ally as better a t financial mana gement and
Policy controversies 163
service delivery than the pub lic sector. Let us look a t tha t claim b y focusing
on J arvis plc – ‘We want to be a leading pr ovider of outsour ced services
across a r ange of mar kets, curr ently including the r ail industry , roads , educa -
tion and other local go vernment sectors’ (Ann ual R eport 2004). J arvis lik e
other major PFI pla yers, Amey and Mo wlem for example, has found the
‘business opportunity’ of PFIs v ery attr active but has faced financial di fficul-
ties arising fr om losses on contr acts (see http://ne ws.scotsman.com/
topics.cfm?tid=571&id=1194522004 and http://educa tion.guar dian.co .uk/
schools/story/0,,945233,00.html ) (see also Bo x 7.2 – a selection of J arvis’s
mar ket acti vities).
(Unless otherwise indica ted, the ma terial her e comes from the J arvis
compan y website and compan y press releases.)
The full pub lic sector costs , dir ect and indir ect, caused b y Jarvis’s pr oblems
will never be kno wn and ar e simply not tak en into account in the o verall
costing of PFI schemes . The social and educa tional impact of the dela ys and
difficulties caused is incalcula ble. Nonetheless , these ar e costs tha t the pub lic
sector has to bear (e .g. see ‘Educa tion, disruption, and m ultiplica tion’, http://
educa tion.guar dian.co .uk/schools/story/0,,945581,00.html , and Huddersfield
Daily Examiner).1 On the other hand, J arvis’s difficulties pr oduced ne w profit
opportunities f or other pri vate companies and in vestment gr oups (SMIF ,
Amey, Vinci, etc.).
One of the other issues her e is tha t PFI clients , local authorities and health
trusts ar e unlik e other sorts of clients in tha t their po wers in r elation to
service providers seem v ery limited – in part because in some cases they ar e
reluctant participants in PFI arr angements . Ruane (2002: 210) also notes ,
echoing m y point a bout ‘insider/outsider’ v alues, the particularity of w hat
she ter ms the ‘construction industry cultur e’ as well as ‘major discr epancies
in the v alues and goals of r espective partners’.
Like other engineering and mana gement services companies such as
Amey, VT and Atkins , Jarvis also a ttempted to e xpand its b usiness into
Policy controversies 167
educa tion services and, in 2003, soon after the P otters Bar r ail crash
(www.guar dian.co .uk/pottersbar/0,11994,713526,00.html ), was awarded a
programme contr act b y the DfES (a gain a mar ket-making mo ve to encour age
a new supplier into the ESI).
The J arvis story also points up another generic issue arising fr om pri vate
sector participa tion and some of the inher ent pr oblems or limita tions, from
the pub lic sector side , of contr acting. In particular , shifts in o wnership , the
‘selling on’ of contr acts, can gi ve rise to disputes o ver responsibility , slippa ge
or evasion, and compliance con flicts (which involve further costs to the pub lic
sector, e.g. SMIF and Kir klees). It w ould seem tha t for companies lik e Jarvis,
despite their flirta tion with educa tion services b usiness, the pub lic sector is
just another pr ofit opportunity and, w hen financial necessity dicta tes, they
sell off or disin vest and mo ve on, leaving others to think a bout and deal with
the social consequences .
LEA contracts
In 2001 another engineering and facilities services compan y, Atkins , moved
to enter the educa tion services b usiness b y bidding to run Southw ark LEA
services. The Atkins 2003 Ann ual R eport noted tha t:
Educa tion is led b y a new Mana ging Dir ector and k ey senior sta ff
appointed in Mar ch 2002 who ar e harnessing the Gr oup’s IT, design,
facilities mana gement and pr ofessional services ca pabilities to pr ovide
integr ated educa tion support services . The Go vernment’s W hite P aper
on Educa tion R efor m will be a ca talyst for gr owth within the sector .
168 Policy controversies
The compan y had esta blished itself in the PFI mar ket and had de veloped a
school design team, and educa tion services seemed lik e a sensib le next mo ve
for their Go vernment Services di vision. The Ann ual R eport goes on:
Our £100m, five-year educa tion outsour cing contr act with the London
Borough of Southw ark is the lar gest issued to da te, covering mor e
than 100 schools and 35,000 childr en. Accor ding to Ofsted, it has
delivered significant impr ovements during its first year . . . Educa tion has
great potential – and the Southw ark PPP sho ws we can meet the chal-
lenge. Ha ving esta blished our cr edentials , we are now seeking ne w con-
tr acts and partnerships in w hich we can sell ad ditional, v alue-ad ded
services.
Atkins’s turno ver in 2002–3 was £806.3 million b ut it posted pr e-tax losses
of £32.8 million, w hich put the compan y under pr essure to r estructur e,
and a possib le tak eover was rumour ed (http://www .citywire.co.uk/Ne ws/
NewsArticle.aspx?VersionID=49546&Men uK ey=Ne ws.Ar chive). In F ebru-
ary 2003 when it w as announced tha t it was talking to potential b uyers,
compan y shar es fell 7 per cent to 111p . In A pril, WS Atkins announced it w as
pulling out of the Southw ark contr act tw o years into a five-year ter m. Their
shar e price rose. Essentiall y, the compan y admitted, the contr act had been
changed in such a w ay tha t not enough pr ofit could be made . Council leader
Nick Stanton said: “W e were paying everything due under the contr act and
mor e on top . This y ear Atkins w as told to pa y mor e to schools .”
One headteacher , who did not w ant to be named, w as quoted in the TES
saying: “F or tw o years we have been used as a go vernment e xperiment w hich
has failed. Atkins should ha ve made the jobs of heads and teachers easier b ut
it made them mor e difficult” (W illiam Ste wart, 6 J une 2003). ‘The go vern-
ment’s r efusal to co ver the costs of the withdr awal left Southw ark with a
£1.5m shortfall in its educa tion b udget’ (W illiam Ste wart, TES, 6 June 2003).
‘Despite the Southw ark setback, Atkins has insisted tha t it will contin ue to
expand in PFI v entur es’ (TES archive, 30 January 2004). ‘The contr act was
Policy controversies 169
handed o ver into the safer hands of CEA; although some Southw ark
Headteachers w ere not pleased to be facing a further period of pri vate sector
involvement’ (Rosie Waterhouse , TES, 30 January 2004).
The Unison Companies Upda te website mak es a crucial point her e, tha t is
the WS Atkins story illustr ates the importance of:
Fluctua tions in the stock mar ket which char acterise and in fluence pri vate
companies’ perf or mance and via bility. This mak es their clients , which
now include schools and LEAs , vulner able. Private companies ha ve no
statutory r esponsibility nor pub lic duty to pr ovide educa tion services nor
are they democr atically accounta ble to their comm unities.
The point is tha t: ‘Corpor ate goals ma y or ma y not coincide with pub lic inter -
ests at an y moment in time’ (Hall and Lubina 2004: 274). One of m y respond-
ents described the a ward of the Southw ark contr act to Atkins as ‘bizarr e’ and
suggested tha t things had changed ‘no w ther e’s more providers in the mar ket
and they [the DfES and the T reasury] want to see or ganisa tions tha t they feel
are low risk’. These mar ket failur es and failur es in mar ket-making ar e further
examples of the fumb lings and e xperimental uses of pri vatisation as a policy
device but also indica te the financial insta bility of the ESI.
The withdr awal of Atkins and the implosion of J arvis were failur es in a
number of senses . They w ere policy failur es, in the sense of failur e to ‘grow’
the educa tion services mar ket. They w ere also r elationship failur es in as m uch
as they pointed up , especially in the case of Atkins , the limits to the ‘embed -
dedness’ of v alues within the ESI. In R uane’s (2002: 210) account of health
service PFIs , health service mana gers she intervie wed regarded a ppeals to
‘trust’ or ‘partnership’ as part of their r elationship with PFI contr actors ‘with
scornful incr edulity’ (p. 210). As a PFI contr actor Atkins a ppears to ha ve
brought its ‘construction industry cultur e’ with it into the Southw ark con-
tr act. Ther e were also mar ket failur es as indica ted, and they demonstr ate the
role of ‘bottom-line’ issues of pr ofitability in pri vate sector decision-making.
One r espondent commented tha t ‘they were pretty crude and they w ere cer-
tainl y a lot mor e focused on the bottom line than w e are’. This is a further
example of the w ay in which the ‘educa tion b usinesses’ differentia te them-
selves from ‘outsiders’. Elaine Simpson, r eflecting on Ser co’s difficulties with
the Br adford LEA contr act, said “the DfES ha ve been concerned tha t it
would end up lik e Southw ark and w e would w alk away. And Ser co have said,
‘No, we’re not going to w alk away. We’re going to sta y ther e and mak e
it work.’ ” The pr oblems which ha ve emerged also indica te technical failur es
in the oper ationalisa tion of LEA outsour cing contr acts. Some a t least of
the contr oversy and di fficulty tha t have accompanied some of these contr acts
derives from the inadequacies or peculiarities of the contr acts themselv es
and the pr ocesses of mutual learning, ada pta tion and negotia tion betw een
the parties in volved at both local and na tional le vel. The companies , the
local authorities and the DfES and their ad visers were all learning as
170 Policy controversies
they went along ho w this ne w kind of mar ket might w ork. One of m y inter-
viewees talk ed of “the b lind leading the b lind” and another r eflected tha t his
compan y “didn’t ha ve the foggiest idea w hen the contr acts were written, w hat
they were taking on”. A thir d commented on the “phenomenal tr ansaction
costs”. CEA in Islington f ound themselv es agreeing to a list of 415 tar gets
and a monthl y reporting schedule . This list w as eventuall y reduced to 60.
Nonetheless , the penalties le vied were given extensive media co verage. One
head of service talk ed about “an a ppallingl y negotia ted contr act” and,
as noted pr eviously, consider able criticism in some cases w as dir ected to
the consultants . “They didn’t understand educa tion b udgets and b udgets
streams”, one r espondent e xplained. Another r eported tha t “the consultants
were per manentl y camped in the A uthority [b ut] people didn’t kno w what
they were doing. This w as bonk ers stu ff.” This w as a pr ocess of ‘trying out f or
size’ on both sides , state and ca pital. Clear ly, most of the participant com-
panies, Atkins aside , did not e xpect to mak e significant money out of these
contr acts fr om the outset. The companies had “to tak e it on the chin”, as one
respondent put it, talking a bout losses made . They w ere testing the w ater,
making friends , demonstr ating good will and b uilding trust with centr al and
local go vernment. The consultants made consider able amounts of money .
The thir d ar ea of contr oversy, the Academies pr ogramme, is rather di ffer-
ent. It ad dresses a different kind of pri vate sector in volvement in sta te educa -
tion, partl y, as discussed in Cha pter 5, thr ough philanthr opy. Ho wever, it is
also a policy e xperiment and it in volves a kind of substanti ve interface
between educa tion and b usiness, as discussed in Cha pter 6. Also in this sec-
tion I look a t some of the Academies’ actors , mor e businessmen, and this
picks up on the importance noted in Cha pter 1 and 2 of the r ole of ‘new
intellectuals’ and a gents of educa tion policy .
Academies
I want teachers a ble to comm unica te the virtues of entr epreneurship and
wealth cr eation. And just as b usiness ty coons ha ve become the pop idols
of the b usiness world, I want our local b usiness leaders to become r ole
models for toda y’s young.
(Gor don Br own speech, December 2003)
The model is , quite deliber ately, the independent sector : unifor ms,
strong independent leadership , a distincti ve ethos and fr eedom fr om
bureaucr acy.
(M. Bak er, TES, 30 September 2005)
• The k eyword which enca psula tes the Academies pr ogramme, and w hich
is a centr al tenet of the Ne w Labour competition sta te, is innovation. It is
envisaged tha t their ‘independent sta tus allo ws them the flexibility to be
inno vative and cr eative in their curriculum, sta ffing and go vernance . . .
[and work] in different ways to tr aditional Local A uthority (LEA)
schools’ and ‘leaders in inno vation’ (DfES 2005a); they ha ve ‘the freedom
172 Policy controversies
to mana ge and inno vate, with minim um interfer ence from the outside’
(Thomas T elford school w ebsite, 31 Ma y 2005), as Sir K evin Satchwell
described Academies in his AST Ann ual Lectur e, or ‘flexibility to suc-
ceed’ as the AST Pr ospectus (2005) puts it. An important part of their
remit is to think and act ‘otherwise’ a bout learning and or ganisa tional
practice and to esca pe from the ‘limita tions’ of tr aditional or ganisa tional
ecologies. They liter ally stand f or and r epresent, in their b uildings and
infrastructur e, new, bold and di fferent thinking – mor e of the d ynamic
rhetoric of Ne w Labour . The Be xley Business Academ y is described b y
its ar chitects F oster and P artners (w ebsite) as ‘an icon f or the com-
munity’ and ‘hailed as an inno vative building tha t str etches the boundar-
ies of educa tion’. As te xts the Academ y buildings ar e enactments of a
new ‘imaginary’ econom y. They also embod y the enterprise and v alues of
their sponsors . In most cases the Academ y buildings ar e new or major
refurbishments . The sponsors can choose the ar chitect, and some leading
British ar chitects ha ve been involved. Ho wever, the second e valua tion
report on the Academies pr ogramme b y PricewaterhouseCoopers (2005)
noted tha t, while the futuristic b uildings look ed impr essive, too m uch
emphasis had been placed on ‘cr eating a bold sta tement . . . at the
expense of some of the mor e practical r equir ements of modern teaching
and learning’. Inno vation is w oven into an a bstr act discursi ve ensemb le
Policy controversies 173
which constitutes the pr ogramme and its policy conte xt. This incorpor ates
technolo gical ad vance and skills , the kno wledge econom y and inter-
national economic competiti veness. ‘Skills and inno vation ar e critical in
the dri ve to r aise pr oducti vity, and with it the tr end of gr owth in the
econom y on which our futur e prosperity will be based’ (‘Colleges f or
excellence and inno vation’, sta tement b y Secretary of Sta te for Educa tion
and Skills on the futur e of FE in England, p . 6). ‘Our secondary str ategy is
similar ly anchor ed in the achie vements of the best schools toda y and in
the r equir ements of a good secondary educa tion in the kno wledge econ-
omy and modern society’ (DfES 2001: 4). A v ariety of inno vations is being
attempted in the Academies (see pa ge 176 on Bexley and pa ge 180 on West
London) within and acr oss what K enway et al. (1993: 122) call the ‘educa -
tion/mar kets/infor mation technolo gy triad’. Learning and or ganisa tional
processes ar e re-articula ted in a ne w hybrid langua ge of sta ging posts ,
piping, acti vity str eams, rough cuts , oper ational imper atives, conte xt-rich
learning, technolo gy-enabled learning, stak eholder comm unica tions and
tr ansitional mana gement. These ar e rhetorical de vices, man y of which ar e
imported fr om b usiness or mana gement-speak, w hich assert the ne w and
the di fferent and the integr ation of educa tion into the discourse of the
econom y or r e-word existing pr actices b ut they also ha ve semantic f orce.
Man y of these schools begin to look and sound lik e firms. The Unity City
Academ y Development T eam (2003: 28) r eports the:
piloting of incuba tor acti vities to impr ove the use and deplo yment of
ICT [evidenced b y the] creation of tw o learning hubs to sim ulate and
experiment with the ne w learning technolo gies and pr actices tha t ar e
to be centr al to the ne w learning model and ne w learning
environment. 2
• They ar e also for ms of partnership. Academies come into being via ‘part-
nerships betw een sponsors and local educa tion partners to ena ble them
and the DfES to assess their indi vidual cir cumstances and decide if a ne w
Academ y is the right solution f or their needs’ (DfES Standar ds website).
A good deal of this partnership acti vity is behind the scenes and goes on
between the DfES , AST, the Ca binet O ffice and LEA o fficers and coun-
cillors – another indica tion of the pr oliferation of spa tial scales of educa -
tion policy 3 – but is also part of the da y-to-da y life of the schools (see
Cha pter 6 on Unity Academ y). Ne w agents and actors ar e playing a part
in the r econstitution of learning and or ganisa tion thr ough ‘partnerships’.
This gives voice to ne w educa tionalists . As noted alr eady, partnerships
are a key device in the r e-making of the ar chitectur e of governance in as
much as they pr ovide ‘linka ges, coupling and congruence betw een actors
and spaces’ (MacK enzie and Lucio 2005: 500) and ar e a way of deliver-
ing policy outcomes thr ough colla bor ative networks and di verse allegi-
ances and commitments . They ar e also an opportunity to do b usiness.
174 Policy controversies
In all these senses they ar e an extension of generic r efor m models
(trust hospitals , fund-holding GPs) and pr ovide exemplars f or the further
extension of these models , as in the cr eation of T rust schools: ‘self-
governing . . . Independent non-fee pa ying sta te schools’ (DfES 2005b:
8), which will ‘contr ol their o wn assets’ (p. 25) and w hich ma y be esta b-
lished ‘by a wide r ange of or ganiza tions’ (p. 27). These ar e further mo ves
in the br eak-up of the pub lic sector monopol y of sta te educa tion,
what Pollack (2004: vii) calls the ‘dismantling pr ocess’ and asserts to be
‘profoundl y anti-democr atic and opaque’.
• As another aspect of partnership , Academies ar e also intended to con-
trib ute to local r egeneration and ar e part of an a ttempt a t this le vel to
construct ‘joined-up’ policies (see Newman 2001: 161), both to help
‘break the cy cle of under achievement’ and ‘acting as a signi ficant f ocus
for learning f or pupils , families and other local people and, in time , shar-
[ing] their expertise with other schools and the wider comm unity’. They
‘serve the local comm unity’, ‘building partnerships with the local com-
munity and b usinesses’, and ar e ‘intended to tr ansfor m educa tion in
areas where the sta tus quo is simpl y not good enough’ (all fr om AST
Prospectus 2005). They ar e open systems with por ous boundaries . Edu-
cational pr oblems and educa tive impulses ar e ‘joined up’ to social and
economic str ategies of r egeneration. As noted alr eady, several Academies
are located or cluster ed 4 in pr oacti ve ‘entrepreneurial localities’ and f or m
part of a portf olio of local economic assets and ima ges and a r e-focusing
of economic str ategies ‘around the fea tur es of specific economic spaces
. . . in the face of competiti ve pressures at home and a broad’ (J essop
2002: 129). They ar e thor oughl y incorpor ated into ‘modes of econo-
mic and social calcula tion tha t encour age entr epreneurship’ (J essop
2002: 189). Mor e specifically they ar e to “ challenge the culture of edu-
cational under-attainment and pr oduce impr ovements in standar ds”
(David Blunk ett speech to the La bour P arty Ann ual Confer ence 2000).
The City Academ y programme w as launched in Mar ch 2000 by David
Blunk ett, then Educa tion Secr etary, as ‘a r adical a ppr oach to pr omote
greater di versity and br eak the cy cle of failing schools in inner cities’.
(The ‘city’ has since been dr opped, to allo w for the cr eation of Acad-
emies outside cities .) ‘Academies ar e now addressing entr enched school
failur e in our most depri ved ar eas and ar e starting to tr ansfor m edu-
cational opportunity f or thousands of our y oung people w ho need it
most’ (DfES 2005b: 15). Academies ar e a good e xample, at least rhet-
oricall y, of what Hodgson (1999: 24) calls an ‘e votopia’, a ‘system tha t
can foster learning, enhance human ca pacities, systema tically incorpor -
ate growing kno wledge, and ada pt to changing cir cumstances’, and, as
Hodgson also notes , ‘the learning econom y is necessarily an inclusi ve
econom y’ (p. 251). Opportunity , meritocr acy and inclusion ar e logical
concomitants of policies intended to pr omote competiti veness. But the
Academies also both denote a mo ve beyond the ‘failur e’ of pub lic sector,
Policy controversies 175
welfare solutions to educa tional under-achie vement and o ffer an alterna -
tive delivered in the f or m of the qualities and a ttrib utes they seek to
instil. They instantia te a no vel combina tion of opportunity and choice ,
and enterprise and inno vation.
• The Academies pr ogramme intr oduces a w hole new set of social and
political actors into educa tion policy – philanthr opic entr epreneurs
(Garr ard, P etchey, Payne, etc.), corpor ations (e.g. ARK, HSBC), social
entr epreneurs (Lampl, R eed), charities (Grieg, etc.) and faith gr oups
(UTL, Oasis and V ardy), a further b lurring of the economic and e xtra-
economic. The pr ogramme is a v ehicle thr ough w hich the opinions
and v oices of her oes of enterprise can be hear d. Acr oss the pr ogramme
ther e is an inter-linking of b usiness, philanthr opy, quangos and non-
governmental a gencies and the r ecurr ence of particular companies and
people within ne w networks of policy. Some of the participants in this
new philanthr opy constitute a philanthr opic elite which is enga ged with
government, party and sta te in a n umbers of w ays.5 Not all of this is ne w.
What is different is the dir ect relation of ‘gi ving’ to policy and the mor e
appar ent in volvement of gi vers in policy netw orks and a mor e ‘hands on’
appr oach to the use of dona tions tha t is evident within the Academies in
particular . These netw orks ar e a circumvention of esta blished in fluences
on and conduits f or ne w policy. They ar e also in themselv es an experi-
ment in go vernance and a f or m of policy ad hocery b y the sta te. ‘Enter-
prise is ha ving ener gy, creativity and a can-do a ttitude dir ected to wards
achieving purpose’ (Academ y of Enterprise w ebsite).
• The pr ogramme gi ves particular emphasis and pr ominence to tw o master
narr atives of Ne w Labour educa tion policy – enterprise and responsibility
– which ar e key tropes of the Thir d Way. These narr atives are represented
substanti vely within the schools themselv es and symbolicall y in their
sponsors . In some cases enterprise is to the f ore (Garr ard, De Haan,
Lowe, Reed) and in others r esponsibility or mor e broadl y ‘values’ or
ethos is pr ominent (UL T and Oasis , Chur ch of England and R C Chur ch)
but in some the tw o ar e combined in the ima ge and commitments of
the sponsor (V ardy, Edmiston, P ayne) or in colla bor ative sponsorship
(the Manchester Academ y is co-sponsor ed by ULT and Manchester
Science Park Ltd). W oods , Woods and Gunter (f orthcoming) note tha t,
as of autumn 2005, 29 (56 per cent) of the Academies w here the special-
ism is kno wn have or plan a b usiness and enterprise specialism, in
14 cases combined with another specialism. The Academies also demon-
strate ‘corpor ate responsibility’ and the caring face of ca pitalism and of
‘self-made men’ (sic) who want to gi ve something back. These her o
entr epreneurs embod y the values of Ne w Labour : the possibilities of
meritocr acy, of achie ving indi vidual success fr om modest beginnings ,
and w ealth cr eation fr om inno vation and kno wledge. In this sense the
Academies ar e also a condensa te of the Thir d Way, working within and
between the fantasies of neo-liber alism and the social fr agmenta tions
176 Policy controversies
which it caused. Ther e are two versions of indi vidualism mix ed in her e,
the classic liber al competiti ve individual on the one hand and the acti ve,
socially responsib le, self-governing citiz en on the other , what Gid dens
calls ‘new individualism’ and R awls (1993) ‘civic humanism’. 6 This
Gid dens asserts to be the need f or living ‘in a mor e open and r eflective
manner than pr evious gener ations’ (Gid dens 1998) involving ‘a ne w
balance betw een indi vidual and collecti ve responsibilities’ (p . 37).
and mana gement to instil r esponsi veness, efficiency and perf or mance
impr ovement into the pub lic sector. ‘Here the pr actitioner is vie wed as
facing outw ards, building partnerships and enga ging comm unities for the
purpose of deli vering “joined-up” and sustaina ble policy outcomes’
(Newman 2005: 720). These ar e dynamic, visionary , risk-taking, entr e-
preneurial indi viduals (lik e David Trigg or Valerie Br agg – see Cha pter 5)
who can ‘turn ar ound’ histories of ‘failur e’, deploying their personal
qualities in so doing, and, as Ne wman (p . 721) notes , ‘this idea is entir ely
consonant with the style of Blair himself’. ‘The dri ving force at this
critical junctur e is leadership . . . It is the v ocation of leaders to tak e
people w here they ha ve never been bef ore and sho w them a ne w world
from which they do not w ant to r eturn’ (Barber and Phillips 2000: 11 –
two of La bour’s k ey educa tion ad visers). The model her e again is b usi-
ness and the firm. The liter atur e and discourse of school leadership dr aw
explicitly on b usiness writing and b usiness gurus . Leaders , as opposed
to mana gers (see Thrupp and W illmott 2003 on this distinction), ar e
the k ey agents in the r e-culturing and r e-engineering of the w elfarist
school. Da vies and Ellison (1997: 5) see leadership as part of the ‘second
wave’ of educa tion r efor m and as a bout ‘hearts and minds’ r ather than
Policy controversies 179
structur es; ‘we consider it equall y important to r eengineer mindsets as
well as pr ocesses within schools’.
Alec Reed is also the f ounder of the charity Academ y for Enterprise ,
which runs a ‘netw ork of UK secondary schools committed to wards creating
Policy controversies 181
an enterprising school cultur e. The 27 schools in the netw ork were given
over £300,000 to wards their successful bid f or specialist schools sta tus’
(http://www .academ yofenterprise .org/schools.shtml ). The aim of the R eed
College Enterprise Netw ork is to facilita te ideas and pr actice sharing betw een
schools. ‘We have also or ganised confer ences, competitions , pupil enterprise
days and INSET da ys for schools in the netw ork.’ The enterprising schools
section of the w ebsite contains ‘r esearch findings fr om the R eed Colleges of
Enterprise and guidance f or embed ding enterprise thr oughout the w hole
school’ (Academ y for Enterprise w ebsite). 7
The example of Alec R eed illustr ates a n umber of k ey themes within ne w
governance (see Cha pter 5). He is a ne w policy a gent and a pr oselytiser for a
new kind of ca pitalism, espousing ne w values. He is a ‘r esponsib le’ capitalist.
He is partner with and participant in se veral pub lic sector or ganisa tions in a
variety of r oles and part of a cir cle of discourse w hich mo ves between signifi-
cant sites of articula tion and netw orks of in fluence in the sta te, the pub lic
sector and ci vil society. He ‘stands f or’ Thir d Way principles and embodies
its discourses of inno vation and cr eativity and kno wledge economics . His
charita ble work inter-twines with his b usiness inter ests and these also cr oss
the pri vate and the pub lic sectors.
He brings to gether the virtues of enterprise and r esponsibility , social and
cultur al entr epreneurship (W oods et al. 2007). As a her o of these virtues he is
a potent policy symbol – as both pub lic-spirited and a w ealth cr eator, a post-
Enr on, post-b ubble capitalist. Such her oes of enterprise ar e also a kind of
condensa te and achie ve a discursi ve gravitas in speaking a bout personal and
national priorities as ‘enterprise intellectuals’ w ho, as Jessop (2002: 6) puts it,
have a key role in the de velopment of ‘economic str ategies, state pr ojects and
hegemonic visions’ and in the consolida tion of ‘an unsta ble equilibrium
among di fferent social f orces’. They offer a ne w kind of ima ginative narr ative
for educa tion and its r elation to the econom y.8
The Academies pr ogramme is then a ne w educa tional ima ginary and
microcosm of political tr ansfor mation and the esta blishment of a ne w mode
of regulation – constituted within sets of ne w identities , social r elations and
institutional or ders, tha t is part of an e xperimental mo ve and a policy pa th-
finder to wards a ne w ‘fix’ and ne w set of r elations betw een sta te, mar ket,
pub lic sector and ci vil society or ganised in r elation to global competiti veness.
It is also a k ey rhetorical de vice tha t ties the pr oject of Ne w Labour into a
single seamless r efor m tr ope.
The pr ogramme r epresents and ad vances the r efor m pr oject, a t di fferent
levels, along a n umber of dimensions:
The pr ogramme is e xplicitly and implicitl y tied to the competiti veness pr oject,
addressing a n umber of the k ey extra-economic conditions f or competiti ve-
ness, and w orks to mobilise and penetr ate ‘micro-social r elations in the
inter ests of valoriza tion’ (Jessop 2001: 295–6) both in the f or mation of ne w
entr epreneurs and in the pr oduction of mar ketable ‘learning inno vations’.
The economic and political changes of post-F ordism ar e here being mirr ored
or r ather str ategically dissemina ted within the educa tion system thr ough
the example of the Academies (and other school r efor m initia tives). But all
this is link ed at least rhetoricall y to social policy and equity (inclusion,
responsibility and social disad vanta ge), although ‘Half of city academies
[are] among w orst-perf or ming schools’ ( Guardian, 19 January 2006).
Policy controversies 183
As systems for or symbols of inno vation, Academies ‘bring the economic,
technolo gical and socio-institutional spher es into an unpr ecedented alliance’
(Bullen et al. 2006: 64) and demonstr ate in educa tion policy the ascendancy
of a particular conca tena tion of ‘inter ests, actions , lucidity and r elative
strength’ (P erez 1983: 360) among those political and economic a gents com-
mitted to f ostering the ‘kno wledge econom y’. Academies ar e part of the
‘hardware’ of the kno wledge econom y discourse .
The pr ogramme is also indica tive of the pr oliferation of spa tial scales of
policy and r egulation w hich ar e relatively dissocia ted ‘in comple x tangled
hierarchies’ (Jessop 2001: 297), which in part mo ve ‘statework out of the
state’ (Clar ke 2004) and in volve the cr eation of ne w lead or ganisa tions and
linka ge devices (e.g. ASST). These schools , as man y others no w do, have
functional and accounta bility r elationships with sponsors (m ultiple in some
cases), units and di visions within the DfES , local partners , pri vate service
companies and non-go vernment a gencies (like PUK). ‘This is a comple x and
contr adictory system of go vernance’ (Ne wman 2001). It is also part of
an ‘unsta ble, ongoing and un finished’ (Clar ke 2004: 119) process of change
(see 2005 White P aper).
8 Not jumping to conclusions
The pr ovision of educa tion is a mar ket opportunity and should be tr eated as
such.
(Eur opean R ound T able of Industrialists , ‘Job cr eation and
competiti veness thr ough inno vation’, ER T, Brussels, No vember 1998)
The pub lic sector and the pri vate sector ar e different. It is danger ous to intr o-
duce pri vate sector pr actices into the de velopment of the essential pub lic
services.
(Lor d Browne, CEO of BP , World Economic F orum, Da vos, 2005)
Ethics
This has been one of the most perple xing and di fficult pieces of r esearch and
anal ysis I have undertak en, di fficult because of the scope and comple xity of
the issues in volved and perple xing because man y of my preconceptions a bout
privatisation ha ve been challenged and some ha ve had to be a bandoned.
Over the course of the r esearch I also f ound it incr easingly difficult to find
a solid and comf orta ble personal position fr om which to vie w privatisation,
partl y because it is not a single phenomenon with unif or m char acteristics . It
also became mor e and mor e clear to me tha t a b lank et defence of the pub lic
sector, as it is or w as, over and a gainst the destructi ve inroads of pri vatisa-
tion, is untena ble. Ther e is no going back to a past in w hich the pub lic sector
as a whole worked well and w orked fair ly in the inter ests of all learners . Ther e
was no such past. The r esponse to pri vatisation, as Michael A pple puts it,
‘cannot be based on the simple assertion tha t everything w e now have has
to be defended’ (A pple 2006: 44). 5 Some pub lic sector institutions w ere and
are in significant w ays ineffective or r acist, sexist and class-biased. Ov er and
against this it is di fficult to den y tha t some educa tion b usinesses do some
things w ell, and perha ps better than some of the pub lic sector, and do
enhance the li ves and opportunities of some y oung and not-so-y oung people .
This is not a defence of the pri vate sector as a w hole b ut it ma y involve an
acceptance tha t some kinds of pri vate sector participa tion ar e mor e defens-
ible than others and tha t some pub lic sector ‘work’ is not as defensib le as all
tha t. Some critics of pri vatisation r outinel y deplo y the une xamined superior-
ity of pub lic services values. Ho wever, what these ar e and w hether they ar e
really practised r ather than just pr eached is often unclear . Do w e mean a set
of pr actices which typify the sector as a w hole? Do w e mean a social ideal,
something to be aimed f or or something w hich is mor e or less well and
routinel y enacted? Or is this another r omantic fiction, ho w we would lik e
things to be b ut they almost ne ver ar e? Further mor e, if they ar e practices,
surely they ar e unsta ble and changing, shifted b y the fr amework of policies
within w hich they ar e realised, for example b y endo genous pri vatisation.
Ma ybe ther e is a kind of con vergence, a b lurring of v alues or the emer gence
of new hybrids. If ther e is something under thr eat and w orth defending then
188 Not jumping to conclusions
we need to be a lot clear er about w hat tha t something is . On the other hand, I
have indica ted ways in which some b usinesses ha ve not w orked effectively in
the inter ests of their clients . The bottom line f or b usiness is ultima tely profit.
Concerns a bout pr ofit (or b usiness failur es) have led some firms to r enege on
or sell o ff their pub lic sector contr acts. Mar kets ar e by their na tur e unsta ble
and not all b usinesses ar e socially responsib le. Educa tion r efor m policy tr ades
on what is often a r omantic vie w of the pri vate sector er asing its w arts and
blemishes. Mor eover, the mor e tha t the ESI consolida tes, the mor e power the
providers accum ulate, and the mor e vulner abilities ther e will be in the pub lic
sector if an y of these b usinesses fail. P erha ps such failur es, if they do ha ppen,
will lead to a r eassessment of pri vate participa tion. W e also need to ask
whether the curr ent mor al environment in the ESI will stand the longer-ter m
test of changing financial pr essures and shar eholder inter ests. As the ESI
evolves and the curr ent incumbents mo ve on, will we see a pr ocess of values
attrition? Further to this , as I indica ted in Cha pter 3, parts of the infr a-
structur e and some of the deli very of pub lic sector services in the UK ar e
moving into f oreign ownership . Ma ybe in the er a of globalisa tion this does
not ma tter, although clear ly ther e are other countries w hich do not toler ate
this. But it does r aise entir ely new issues about r esponsibility f or pub lic
services which ar e simply not being discussed pub licly.
Embed ded in the b lurrings and mo vements acr oss the pub lic/private divide
is a new set of ethical positions . The ne w policy fr amework of the competi-
tion sta te, and pri vatisation in particular , constitutes a new moral environment
for both consumers and pr oducers of educa tion – a f or m of ‘commer cial
civilisation’ (Benton 1992: 118). W ithin this ne w mor al environment the ‘pr o-
cedur es of moti vation’ which ar e being r ealised elicit and gener ate the dri ves,
relationships and v alues which underpin competiti ve behaviour and the
struggle f or ad vanta ge or what No vak (1982) calls ‘virtuous self-inter est’.
Perha ps what we are witnessing then in the cele bration of entr epreneurship
and the dissemina tion of the v alues of the ne w par adigm of competiti veness
in educa tion is the cr eation of a ne w ethical ‘hid den curriculum’ (see W hitty
2002) in and f or schools , within w hich teachers and students learn ne w iden-
tities. In some schools this curriculum is incr easingly explicit and the v alues
and pr actices of enterprise and entr epreneurship ar e foster ed and taught,
what F arns worth (2004) calls a ‘b usiness-centr ed curriculum’. Put crudel y,
the educa tion mar ket both de-socialises and r e-socialises; it destr oys older
for ms of socia bility, while at the same time encour aging competiti ve indi-
vidualism and instrumentality . Pr evailing values ar e changed and the spaces
within w hich r eflection upon and dialo gue over values were possib le are
closed do wn and r eplaced b y the teleolo gical pr omiscuity of the technical and
mana gerial pr ofessional, ‘a pr ofessional w ho clear ly meets corpor ate goals, set
elsewhere, mana ges a range of students w ell and documents their achie ve-
ments and pr oblems for pub lic accounta bility purposes’ (Br ennan 1996: 22).
Teachers ar e thus encour aged by the pr evailing policy ensemb le to r ecognise
and tak e responsibility f or the r elationship betw een their contrib ution to
Not jumping to conclusions 189
the competiti veness of their or ganisa tion and their security of emplo yment.
‘Mar ketness’ replaces ‘embed dedness’ (Robertson 1996), w hat O’Sullivan
(2005: 230) calls a ‘mercantile solidarity , derived from contr actual, partial
and calcula ting associa tion’.
Necessities
The ne w necessities of educa tion policy and their solutions – pri vatisation – ar e
proba bly best ca ptur ed in the simplest sense thr ough the concept of space and
the r e-spatialisa tion and r e-scaling of educa tion policy – a sim ultaneity of
man y political tr ajectories and pr ocesses. Among man y dimensions , ther e is
most ob viously the subor dina tion of educa tion to the competiti ve pressures
of the global mar ket and the a ttempt in the UK, and else where, to facilita te a
‘knowledge econom y’ within which surplus v alue is gener ated b y new kinds
of ‘immaterial la bour ers’ – involved in both a ffective and symbolic pr actices.
This ne w kind of la bour is itself spa tially particular , working in and thr ough
networks of ‘contin ual inter activity’ (Har dt and Negri 2000: 291), and I ha ve
tried to gi ve some gener al indica tions of a ‘ne w corr espondence’ (W hitty
2002) between schooling and ca pital in ter ms of the w ays in which schooling
is being r e-worked by technolo gy and thr ough ne w for ms of tempor al and
spatial arr angements f or learning. Educa tional institutions incr easingly look
like, act lik e and ha ve social and or ganisa tional arr angements lik e those of
firms. Students ar e also being made up di fferently and can be ‘home schooled’
or virtuall y ‘connected’ to a digital schooling comm unity, and they can
choose among di verse pr oviders and curricular o fferings – a bor derless
educa tion. The spaces of kno wledge itself ar e reorganised as sequences of
kno wledge gobbets (‘Bytesize’ as it is on the BBC r evision website) which can
be tr ansferr ed as ‘credits’ and combined in no vel ways with no guar antee of
internal coher ence – a ‘cut and paste curriculum’, as R obertson (2000) calls it,
fluid and non-linear . In such changes , students ar e render ed as acti ve con-
sumers b ut passi ve (and r esponsib le) learners (F abos and Y oung 1999; Cloete
et al. 2001). In the home , learning and r ecreation ar e blurr ed into ne w for ms
of ‘edutainment’ and sta te educa tion can be supplemented b y par ents b uying
in expert services or enrichment acti vities for their childr en (Vincent and
Ball 2006).
Schools ar e becoming ne w kinds of spaces and places as they ar e rebuilt
and r e-designed, figuratively and liter ally. They stand f or, ar e icons of , new
policy, new modalities of learning – the pr oducts of a r e-imagineering. They
have new kinds of social and ar chitectur al ecolo gies, which pr omise ne w kinds
of learning e xperience, in technolo gically rich, flexible learning en vironments .
They r epresent learning in ne w kinds of w ays with flair and d ynamism, a
break fr om, policy tells us , both the lumpen commonalities and the class-
ridden di visions of the pr evious educa tion policies r egimes. They ar e also
assets, owned b y construction companies or pri vate equity funds (na tional
and f oreign), pr oviding long-ter m income flows and b uilt for flexible use,
190 Not jumping to conclusions
which can be bought and sold in financial mar kets. They ar e spaces in w hich
new kinds of policy actors can act out their ideas a bout educa tion and per-
sonal commitments (social, mor al and r eligious). The pub lic sector gener ally
is now thor oughl y enmeshed within the ‘systemic po wer of finance and finan-
cial engineering’ (Blackb urn 2006: 39). Finance ca pital (e.g. HSBC , Goldman
Sachs, UBS) is in volved in school financing in a wide v ariety of w ays, ranging
from PFI pr oject funding to sponsorship and philanthr opy. Ne w-generation
schools (lik e Academies) ar e also joined up with and open to their com-
munities, with facilities (s wimming pools and post o ffices) and services
(health and b usiness centr es), longer hours and shar ed spaces (cyber-cafés ,
confer ence centr es). Variousl y in these w ays educa tion is both mor e global
and mor e local, and ne w ‘power geometries’ (Massey 1994) ar e emerging,
creating ne w patterns of social access and e xclusion – a highl y comple x social
differentia tion set alongside ne w insecurities. Schools ar e mor e ‘open’ in
other senses . In the conte xt of competiti ve and contr act funding, ther e is an
individua tion of schools and of the school w orkplace in volving mor e and
mor e short-ter m pr ojects, and fr eelancers, consultants and a gency workers
with fixed-ter m contr acts and skill mix es – some of these ne w kinds of w ork-
ers ar e ‘with’ and ‘for’ the or ganisa tion, r ather than ‘in’ it, as W ittel (2001: 65)
puts it. Social ties within educa tional w ork become ephemer al, disposa ble,
serial, fleeting – and educa tional la bour is ‘ flexibilised’ and made mor e
amena ble to the r equir ements of competition betw een institutions and the
generation of ‘pr ofit’. This further contrib utes to the dissolution of older
mor al ob ligations and the in vention of ne w ones, the dissolution of older
professional identities and the in vention of ne w ones.
The spaces of policy ha ve also changed in other w ays. Policy itself is being
done in ne w places b y different people , locally, nationall y and interna tionall y;
the cr eation of a Eur opean ‘educa tion space’ and the competition policies of
the World Trade Or ganiza tion insin uate themselv es into , or simpl y over-ride,
‘national’ policy-making. The SWS is in important w ays a post-na tional
state. The places tha t ma tter f or policy ar e mor e dispersed. Ther e are shift-
ing ‘geographies of po wer’ (Robertson and Dale 2003). Ther e are school
autonomies (r eflexive self-organisa tion) of a sort. Ther e are new networked
federations of schools and colleges and uni versities and m ultiple partnerships ,
both local and dispersed, r elating to gether thr ough digital comm unica tion
and economies of scale . Ther e are entr epreneurial localities , and their net-
worked ‘growth alliances’. Ther e is a pr oliferation of ne w non-go vernmental
agencies, lead and link or ganisa tions and trusts , most of w hich ar e also
requir ed to act entr epreneuriall y. Man y of these also act interna tionall y to
dissemina te, to learn and to sell – thr ough netw orks. Ther e are new players,
individual and corpor ate, who sit a t the ta bles of policy, seek in fluence and
favour, and ‘do’ policy b y contr act and in r elation to outcome measur es and
perfor mance pa yments. These policy conte xts ar e, again par ado xically, both
mor e transpar ent and less visib le. Think tanks , ad visers and entr epreneurial
actors ar e able to speak a bout and speak to policy , thr ough ne w social
Not jumping to conclusions 191
networks which cr oss betw een pub lic, private and v oluntary and philanthr opic
spaces. Identities and inter ests and commitments morph as the ne w policy
actors mo ve between these loca tions. Policy discourse flows thr ough these
new places, gathering pace and support and cr edibility as it mo ves – achieving
a high le vel of acti ve consent. T ogether all of this constitutes a ne w but
unsta ble ‘spatio-tempor al fix’ as Jessop (2002) calls it, and as I ha ve been a t
pains to emphasise it is ‘made up’ out of a mix of di fferent kinds of policy
ideas and is onl y incoher ently coher ent.
In r elation to all of this the sta te itself is incr easingly dispersed (meta -
governance) and in some r espects smaller , as it mo ves from pub lic sector
provision to a contr acting and monitoring r ole and enga ges in its o wn auto-
redesign (desta talisa tion), b ut also a t the same time mor e intrusi ve, surv eil-
lant and centr ed. In particular , as alr eady signalled, the spher e of ‘economic
policy’ is greatly expanded and the sta te is incr easingly proacti ve in pr omot-
ing competiti veness and sca ffolding inno vative capacities – collecti ve and
individual – in educa tion and else where thr ough f ocused funding and str ategic
interv entions .
Ho wever, in the hea t and noise of r efor m it would be a mistak e to neglect
the r emaining (and ne w) spaces of dissent and r esistance as w ell as the
resilience of ‘discredited’ discourses and alterna tive educa tional narr atives.
Unions ( http://www .pub licnotpri vate.org.uk/articles .html ), par ents and local
alliances ha ve organised with some success to oppose some aspects of some
policies and to assert their r oles as citiz ens rather than as consumers (W hitty
2002: 79–93) and to defend impersonal concerns and k eep educa tion ‘in’ and
‘of’ place and ‘for’ local comm unities.
The questions r aised b y all of this concern w hat kind of futur e we want f or
educa tion and w hat role pri vatisation and the pri vate sector might ha ve in
tha t futur e, and cruciall y how justice and ethical beha viour can be balanced
against a necessary pr agmatism within a modern and democr atic system of
educa tion. 6 The task a t hand is to understand the situa tion w e are curr ently
in with r espect to the phenomenon of pri vatisations and to de velop an
appr opria te and e ffective langua ge and set of concepts f or thinking a bout
what is ha ppening and a bout possib le alterna tives. Only once a pr oper under-
standing of pri vatisation is achie ved can w e begin to think constructi vely
beyond the pr essures of the pr esent. We need to struggle to think di fferently
about educa tion policy bef ore it is too la te (e.g. see Yarnit 2006). W e need to
move beyond the tyr annies of impr ovement, e fficiency and standar ds, to
recover a langua ge of and f or educa tion articula ted in ter ms of ethics , mor al
obligations and v alues.7
Appendix
Research intervie ws
Extr acts fr om intervie ws and other dir ect speech ar e indica ted in the bod y of
the te xt by doub le quota tion mar ks.
Notes
2 Privatisation(s) in contexts
1 This tr ope ob literates the failings of pri vate sector mana gement (lik e those of
Arthur Andersen, Enr on, J arvis, Ballast, etc.), both r omanticising and cleansing
private sector pr actices.
3Es 49, 54, 60, 77, 120, 129, 133 ASST 148, 183, 195
4Ps (Pub lic Private Partnerships Atkins , WS 69, 74, 80, 97, 109, 159, 166,
Programme) 116 167–70
5E 82 Auvray, Ray 73, 90, 112, 119